HomeMy Public PortalAbout20220323 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 22-10
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, March 23, 2022
Special meeting starts at 5:00 PM*
Regular meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
REVISED A G E N D A
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Resolution 21-33, and in light of the declared state of emergency, the meeting will not be
physically open to the public and all members will be teleconferencing into the meeting via a
virtual platform. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access,
members of the public can listen to the meeting and participate using the following methods.
THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/89842913943 or listen to the meeting
by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (898 4291 3943).
2. Members of the public may provide written or oral comments by submitting a public comment form
at: https://www.openspace.org/public-comment
• Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time the board president calls
for public comments.
• Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is
closed.
• All comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern speaker comments at the
board of directors meeting.
• All written comments or requests to speak must be submitted via the public comment form. Requests
to provide oral comments may be made by leaving a message at 650-772-3614 at least one hour prior to
the start of the meeting. Comments via text or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted.
Any comments received after the deadline, will be provided to the Board after the meeting.
5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ROLL CALL
1. Proposed New Mitigation Policy (R-22-41)
Staff Contact: Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Department
Meeting 22-10
Rev. 1/3/20
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a new Mitigation Policy and associated revisions to the
Resource Management Policies to guide future decisions on outside agency mitigation requests and
inform mitigation efforts for internal projects.
ADJOURNMENT
7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
• Introduction of staff
o Anna Costanza, GIS Technician
O Eleanor Raab, Public Affairs Specialist I
TIME CERTAIN 7:30 PM
• Presentation of Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition by Members of the District's
Federal Delegation and Surrounding Members
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the agenda is for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda;
however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items
not on the agenda. Individuals are limited to one comment during this section.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members,
the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent
Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
1. Approve the March 9, 2022 Board meeting minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Proposed Trail Name for Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Loop Trail (R-22-
39)
Staff Contact: Arianna Nuri, Planner I, Planning Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the proposed “Grasshopper Loop Trail” name for
the former Sears Ranch Road loop trail located in lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve,
which was unanimously supported by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee.
4. Award of Contract for the Hawthorns Historic Complex Structural Assessment (R-22-40)
Staff Contact: Ivana Yeung, Capital Project Manager II, Engineering and Construction
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter contract with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.,
of Emeryville, California, for a base amount of $88,060.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $13,209 to be expended only if necessary to cover
unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $101,269.
Rev. 1/3/20
5. Contract Amendments for Grassroots Ecology to provide two years of annual vegetation
monitoring and reporting and Jana Sokale Environmental Consulting to provide two years
of adaptive management recommendations and annual regulatory agency reporting, both in
support of the Hendrys Creek Restoration Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. (R-
22-42)
Staff Contact: Amanda Mills, Resource Specialist II, Natural Resources Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with Grassroots Ecology for
two additional years of annual vegetation monitoring and reporting for the Hendrys Creek
Restoration Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve in the amount of $23,340, for a total
amended contract not-to-exceed $335,340.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with Jana Sokale
Environmental Consulting for two additional years of adaptive management recommendations
and annual regulatory agency reporting for the Hendrys Creek Restoration Project at Sierra
Azul Open Space Preserve in the amount of $17,280, for a total amended contract not-to-
exceed $67,255.
6. Teleconferenced Board Meetings Pursuant to the Brown Act and Assembly Bill 361 (R-22-
43)
Staff Contact: Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution affirming findings on the continued
need for remote teleconferenced public meetings pursuant to AB 361.
BOARD BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARING
Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors.
7. Public Hearing and Adoption of the New Redistricting Ward Boundary Map (R-22-44)
Staff Contact: Jamie Hawk, GIS Program Administrator, Information Systems & Technology
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Hold a public hearing to obtain public comment regarding consideration of the preferred
redistricting scenario map.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing the boundaries of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
wards that align with the preferred redistricting scenario map.
8. Hawthorns Area Plan – Approval of the Vision and Goals (R-22-45)
Staff Contact: Alex Casbara, Planner III, Planning Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Review and approve the Vision and Goals for the
Hawthorns Area Plan as recommended by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or
announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board
questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or
direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to
staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board.
A. Committee Reports
B. Staff Reports
C. Director Reports
Rev. 1/3/20
ADJOURNMENT
*Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed
to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s
Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that
the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and
available for review on March 17, 2022, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos
California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, CPMC
District Clerk
Rev. 1/3/18
R-22-41
Meeting 22-10
March 23, 2022
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Proposed New Mitigation Policy
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a new Mitigation Policy and associated revisions to the Resource Management Policies to
guide future decisions on outside agency mitigation requests and inform mitigation efforts for
internal projects.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is regularly approached by outside
agencies seeking to provide funding and/or request the ability to implement mitigation work on
District lands required by regulatory agencies to offset impacts caused by their offsite projects.
The District also very rarely has the need to purchase external compensatory mitigation credits
for work occurring on District lands (e.g. for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Project R-19-19). To
date, mitigation requests and mitigation purchase options have been considered on a case-by-
case basis. The proposed Mitigation Policy (Attachments 1 and 2) and associated revisions to the
Resource Management Policies (RMPs) Attachments (3 and 4) provide a framework and
adaptive criteria to guide future District decisions. The proposed Mitigation Policy also guides
mitigation practices for the District’s own projects.
DISCUSSION
At past Board of Directors (Board) and Committee meetings, Board members have asked for a
District policy to guide the evaluation of outside agency mitigation requests and inform mitigation
efforts for District-led projects. In 2021, staff developed a draft Mitigation Policy for the Board’s
initial feedback (R-21-12). The Board requested formatting changes and more concise language,
which is reflected in the ‘redline’ edit of the Policy (Attachment 2). The Board also directed staff
to review the policy with partner conservation organizations and environmental advocates.
Staff extended an invitation to review the draft policy to organizations that participate in the Santa
Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network (Network) on September 10, 2021. Agencies that chose to
attend the presentation included: Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, Calfire, San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission, Peninsula Open Space Trust, and the San Mateo County Resource
Conservation District. Network participants shared their experiences with mitigation in their
geographies and asked questions about how the Mitigation Policy addressed certain complex
topics. None of the participants have formal mitigation policies, though many had informal
R-22-41 Page 2
practices. No comments or suggestions were received on the draft language of the Mitigation
Policy.
Staff also presented the draft policy to organizations that participate in the conservation council
(an informal regular meeting of representatives of several environmental groups), hosted by Green
Foothills, on February 3, 2022. Participants included: Santa Clara Valley Audubon, The Nature
Conservancy, Wildlife Stewards, Green Foothills, Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, Friends of
Coyote Creek, and the California Native Plant Society. They asked general questions about
mitigation, discussed the draft policy and were overall supportive. One participant suggested that
the District consider making a finding of ‘net benefit’ to the policy to ensure the impacting project
and the mitigation project would result in an overall benefit to the affected
species/habitat/resource. In response, a policy directive was added to policy M-7 directing that the
staff analysis and recommendation include “a finding that the project and mitigation will likely
result in a long-term benefit to the affected resource.” Another asked if the Policy includes outreach
to environmental advocacy groups to ensure they have no concerns with the acceptance of
mitigation funding/restoration from a specific project. The evaluation of mitigation requests by
District staff often includes outreach to advocacy groups, which meets criteria 3 Public, Partner
and Social Implications. However, some requests are minor, straightforward, and/or requested
directly by regulatory agencies. An example would be a mitigation request derived from
maintenance activities for an existing facility that provides a benefit to a special status species yet
requires mitigation (such as the Pacific Gas and Electric external project on Woodruff Creek in
San Mateo County to properly size, maintain, and replace a storm damaged culvert within a fish
bearing stream). In such instances, outreach may not occur if the request is limited in scope and/or
provides a clear benefit (such as the above example which resulted in improved stream conditions
for fish). Additionally, all external mitigation funding more than $50,000 would be brought to the
Board for approval, providing a public forum for input. Mitigation requests from controversial
projects are normally denied before they reach Board review.
The original proposed evaluation criteria for third-party compensatory mitigation remains
unchanged since the initial Board review. They are:
1) Alignment with District Mission, Policies, and Goals
How does the project and the mitigation align with the District’s Mission and Goals?
2) Proximity to District Lands and Regional Context
What is the geographic proximity to the external project?
3) Public, Partner, and Social Implications
What are the potential public, societal and partner implications?
4) Low-impact Project Design and Appropriate Mitigation
How has the external entity first reduced environmental impacts through project design
before approaching the District with a mitigation request?
5) Ecological Impact versus Value
What is the ecological impact of the project versus the ecological value of the proposed
mitigation?
R-22-41 Page 3
Another commentor asked that the supplemental questions staff ask when applying the
evaluation criteria be included in the Policy. When the Board previously reviewed the draft
Mitigation Policy, they directed staff to reduce the length of the overall policy to be consistent
with the high-level policy language used throughout the RMPs as a whole. These questions were
removed from the written policy but remain as a standalone document (Attachment 5) that would
be used by staff when forming a recommendation.
Adding a Mitigation Policy (Attachments 1 and 2) as a new chapter to the larger Board approved
RMPs also necessitates updates to the RMP Glossary. New terms resulting from the Mitigation
Policy that are proposed for inclusion are found in Attachment 3.
In developing the new Mitigation Chapter, it was apparent that documenting the District’s
project management approach into formal policy would be of value since all Mitigation Projects
follow this approach. Thus, this information is proposed as a new Appendix B to the overall
RMPs. See Attachment 4 detailing the District’s project management approach.
The proposed Mitigation Policy is consistent with the District’s focus in establishing regional
and landscape-level net benefits across District lands. This focus prioritizes high resource value
sites to ensure that staff capacity and funding resources are allocated to sites where the greatest
natural resource benefits can be achieved. Consideration of outside mitigation funding will
provide an additional funding source for regionally important restoration work and promote
partnerships that support the regional health and resiliency of natural resources.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the Mitigation Policy has no immediate fiscal impact but may provide additional
funding for District restoration projects in the future.
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Board reviewed the draft policy at the April 28, 2021 meeting and provided initial
comments, requested specific edits, and directed staff to review the policy with partner
conservation organizations and environmental advocates (R-21-12) (minutes).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Each
project that incorporates mitigation must be evaluated either individually or programmatically
under CEQA by an applicable lead agency. For internal projects, the District is the lead agency;
for external projects, the lead agency is typically another local public agency.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the Mitigation Policy will be used to evaluate mitigation funded projects and grants.
Mitigation projects and grants above $50,000 will be evaluated using this Policy and brought to
R-22-41 Page 4
the Board for consideration. The complete revised Resource Management Policies, including this
chapter with additional final formatting, will be uploaded on the District website.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Mitigation Policy Chapter
2. Redline edits to the Mitigation Policy Chapter compared to the draft presented to the
Board on April 28, 2021.
3. New terms and definitions for the proposed Mitigation Policy Chapter to be added to
the Resource Management Policies Glossary
4. Redline edits to the proposed Appendix B of the Resource Management Policies
detailing the Project Management Approach
5. Questions staff ask when reviewing proposed Mitigation requests
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department
Prepared by:
Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department
Aaron Hébert, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department
Contact person:
Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
92
I. MITIGATION
Mitigation refers to a suite of measures that avoids, minimizes, or
effectively eliminates the impact(s) for a given activity on the
environment. Project mitigations may come from a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, state and federal permits,
or from county or local ordinances. This policy applies to mitigations
that pertain to natural and cultural resources which may be
incorporated into local, state and federal permit approvals. CEQA-
related mitigation involving natural and cultural resources are
considered elsewhere in District policy - specifically other chapters of
the Resources Management Policies, the Basic Policy, and other Board
Policies such as 4.09- Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition.
This mitigation policy creates the process by which District staff define
and consider the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative of a project. Mitigation may result from either an internal or
District-led project occurring on District-owned lands or an external
project, which is a project led by another agency. Midpen’s role in
reviewing external projects’ where Midpen may be a CEQA Responsible
Agency is detailed in the “District Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act.”
BACKGROUND
Impacts to the environment come in many forms but can be broadly
characterized as temporary and/or permanent. Temporary impacts are
those which do not result in a durable change or are short-term in
nature. Permanent impacts are those that convert habitat or affect
resources in a durable fashion.
Impacts can be described as potential or actual. Potential impacts
cannot be ruled out or confirmed definitively until a future assessment
is completed or the project is implemented. Some permits require
defining the Area of Potential Effect, which encompasses a larger area
around the actual impact location. Actual impacts arise from known and
An example of a project
having an indirect effect may
include installation of a new
trail that may cause an
increase or decrease in
preserve visitation.
An example of a project
having a direct effect may
include the removal of select
trees or other vegetation to
construct new bridge
footings within a riparian
area resulting in the need for
replacement plantings.
ATTACHMENT 1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
93
definite impacts to a resource, whether temporary or permanent. CEQA
analyzes three types of effects: direct, indirect, and cumulative. Direct
effects occur at the place and at the same time as the project
implementation (e.g., ground disturbance, tree removal, etc.). Indirect
effects are reasonably foreseeable effects that occur at different times
or places (e.g. impacts that occur due to the proposed action but
beyond the footprint of a project or activity). Cumulative effects are
two or more effects that compound together or increase other
environmental impacts.
The existing condition or environment baseline describes the
environmental setting, ecology, and resources prior to a proposed
activity. Temporal loss is an impact arising from a delay between an
impact and compensatory mitigation.
While CEQA and permitting agencies have different definitions and
frameworks, including the precise use of the term ‘mitigation’, the
principles of mitigation are shared. The main difference is that CEQA
mitigations are approved, monitored, and reported by the CEQA lead
agency, which is usually the District in the case of District-led projects.
Mitigations required through permitting are ultimately approved by the
permitting agencies yet monitored and reported by the lead agency.
An example of cumulative
impacts using the above
examples would be removal
of the riparian vegetation
compounded with an
increase in visitor usage that
may together cumulatively
affect water quality and/or
future wildlife usage at the
project site.
ATTACHMENT 1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
94
MITIGATION GOALS, POLICIES, AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Goal M- Avoid and minimize adverse impacts to natural
and cultural resources to the maximum feasible
extent and use mitigation for all other unavoidable
impacts. Couple mitigation with high priority
restoration when feasible.
Policy M-1 Review and consider all applicable District Policies,
programmatic permits, and CEQA documents to develop the
project scope, incorporating the following practices (listed in
in order of priority): avoidance, minimization and/or
mitigation of potential impacts.
♦ Refer to Board Policies, including but not limited to the
Basic Policy, and other applicable Resource Management
Policy Chapters.
♦ Review applicable resource agency programmatic permits
and/or programmatic CEQA documents to determine if the
project can be covered using existing avoidance,
minimization or mitigation measures to reduce the need for
compensatory mitigation.
Policy M-2 Identify and evaluate sensitive resources to determine the
least impactful project design that meets the project goals
and objectives.
♦ Develop a brief and inclusive project description.
♦ Define the maximum Area of Potential Effect.
♦ Survey, identify, and map sensitive ecological and cultural
resources within the project area.
♦ Analyze how different project alternatives may avoid or
impact existing resources.
ATTACHMENT 1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
95
♦ Analyze other activities within the watershed and/or
Preserve to understand the net effect of the proposed
project.
♦ Compare potential impacts against the feasibility, cost, and
project goals and objectives (including long term
maintenance and monitoring).
♦ Document the basis of design and why the project is the
least environmentally impactful alternative.
♦ The basis of design can be informed by the CEQA review
process and/or an alternatives analysis conducted during
permitting review.
Policy M-3 Evaluate and incorporate measures that minimize the
effects of the project on the sensitive resources.
♦ Refine the project description into a sequential narrative
and refine the resulting Area of Potential Effect.
♦ Conduct further detailed and site-specific surveys of natural
and cultural resources as needed to adjust and refine the
project design to avoid and minimize project impacts.
♦ Define and quantify the temporary, permanent, potential,
and actual impacts of the project to the extent feasible.
♦ Adjust the project scope, extent, seasonality, duration, or
other measures to minimize actual or potential impacts to
the resources.
Policy M-4 Develop a compensatory mitigation strategy as a measure
of last resort.
♦ Review the temporary and permanent impacts.
♦ Evaluate onsite mitigation for short-term and long-term cost
efficiencies, habitat benefit, physical capacity, and staff
resources.
♦ Evaluate existing voluntary restoration projects for potential
use as mitigation, including vegetation management for
The basis of design
integrates engineering,
constructability, costs, and
environmental
considerations to explain
the rationale behind the
selected project and why
other alternatives do not
sufficiently meet the project
goals.
ATTACHMENT 1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
96
resiliency work (e.g., wildland fire, climate change, and/or
invasive species removal).
♦ If the overall impacts and associated mitigations are
substantial, review other voluntary restoration work that the
District may plan or conduct in the watershed or Preserve
that can mitigate the impacts and/or result in a ‘net
environmental benefit’.
♦ When applying restoration and/or recovery work to
compensate for project impacts, select high priority
species, habitats, populations, and ecological processes
first, preferably in high conservation value areas, including
Conservation Management Units, to maximize the regional
net environmental benefit.
♦ When onsite mitigation is not feasible, evaluate the
appropriateness of implementing mitigation work in off-site
locations (refer to ‘like for like’ as described above)
♦ Prioritize facilitating or supporting regionally significant
restoration projects, as defined by a recovery plan,
watershed plan, or other collaborative planning document,
when using compensatory mitigation funds.
♦ Ensure that baseline mitigation ratios are correctly
proportioned by accounting for both the uncertainty
inherent in mitigation work and the anticipated probability of
success.
♦ If no other options are cost effective and feasible, search
for partner agencies or conservation organizations that may
facilitate third-party mitigation. Consider those that support
a Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat
Conservation Plan, Regional Conservation Investment
Strategy or other regional conservation planning.
Policy M-5 Weigh the mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting costs and impacts alongside the project benefits.
♦ After defining a third-party compensatory mitigation
strategy, evaluate the sum of all mitigation costs
(construction expenses, biological or cultural monitoring,
ATTACHMENT 1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
97
revegetation, compensatory mitigation, and post-
construction monitoring).
♦ If the overall impacts and associated mitigation costs are
substantial, determine whether revisiting the project goal(s)
and scope is warranted.
♦ Consider a recommendation to alter or withdraw the
project.
Policy M-6 When needed, evaluate compensatory mitigation
proposed by the District for purchase or implementation on other
properties.
♦ Confirm if the project is using the least environmentally
damaging and feasible alternative.
♦ If no feasible option or habitat within District lands is
available for which to mitigate for an impact, consider a
recommendation to alter or withdraw the project.
♦ If after evaluation no feasible alternative or option exists,
funding of or implementing off-site mitigation may be
considered.
Policy M-7 When third-party compensatory mitigation is proposed by
outside parties to the District, evaluate proposals using criteria that
aligns with the District’s Mission, Goals, and Policies.
♦ District analysis of third-party proposals will include a
summary of the request, a description of the third-party
project (“proposed project”), the required mitigation, and a
finding that the project and mitigation will likely result in a
long-term benefit to the affected resource.
♦ Evaluation criteria of third-party proposals shall include:
o Alignment with District Mission, Policies, and
Goals
o Proximity to District Lands and Regional
Context
ATTACHMENT 1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
98
o Public, Partner, and Social Implications
o Low-impact Project Design and Appropriate
Mitigation
o Ecological Impact vs Value
Policy M-8 Recommend third-party compensatory mitigation that fulfill
District goals and meet District criteria.
♦ Evaluation criteria will be used to determine whether to
further consider outside proposals for acceptance of
mitigation funds and/or mitigation work on District lands.
♦ Projects are ranked against the evaluation criteria.
Although not all projects will meet every criterion, projects
must be able to provide a clear benefit to the District to be
considered for acceptance.
♦ The value of the outside mitigation funds or proposed
mitigation work determines the level of approval authority.
External mitigation valued at greater than the General
Manager’s signing authority requires Board approval.
♦ Staff findings and recommendations are forwarded to the
approving authority. Recommendations will be based on
the (ranked) criteria and the particulars of the proposed
project and associated compensatory mitigation. Projects
that do not meet minimum criteria, do not provide a clear
public benefit, and/or are controversial may be denied.
♦ Staff will review and ensure a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, or Program is in place before accepting
funds or mitigation work.
ATTACHMENT 1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
99
This page intentionally blank
ATTACHMENT 1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
92
I.MITIGATION
Mitigation refers to a suite of measures that avoids, minimizes, or
effectively eliminates the impact(s) for a given activity on the
environment. Mitigation involves using avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant amount, rectifying
environmental damages or harm caused by a project or action, and
compensating for temporary or permanent irreversible impacts. Project
mitigations may come from a California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) document, state and federal permits required by the Clean
Water Act/Porter‐Cologne Act and Endangered Species Acts, or from
county or local ordinances. This policy applies to mitigations that
pertain to natural and cultural resources (e.g. biological resources,
paleontological, hydrology and water quality, cultural resources, and
tribal cultural resources), which may be incorporated into local, state
and federal permit approvals. These permits are administered by
various municipalities, counties, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE),
and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). CEQA‐related
mitigation involving natural and cultural resources are considered
elsewhere in District policy ‐ specifically other chapters of the Resources
Management Policies, (VM, WM, IPM, WR, GS, SA, CR, RC, PI, GM, FM,
ES, HC, WF, CC), the Basic Policy, and other Board Policies such as 4.09‐
Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition.
This mitigation policy creates the process by which District staff define
and consider the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative of a project. Mitigation may result from either an internal or
District‐led project occurring on District‐owned lands or an external
project, which is a project led by another agency involving District‐
owned lands either for implementation and/or mitigation. Midpen’s
role in reviewing external projects’ where Midpen may be a CEQA
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
93
Responsible Agency is detailed in the “District Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.”
BACKGROUND
DEFINITIONS
Mitigation in this section guides project planning and design to minimize
environmental impacts and to anticipate permit‐related mitigations
from local, state, and federal agencies.
Impacts to the environment come in many forms but can be broadly
characterized as temporary and/or permanent. Temporary impacts are
those which do not result in a durable change or are short‐term in
nature. Permanent impacts are those that convert habitat or affect
resources in a durable fashion.
Impacts can be described as potential or actual. Potential impacts
cannot be ruled out or confirmed definitively until a future assessment
is completed or the project work is implemented. Some permits require
defining the Area of Potential Effect, which encompasses a larger area
around the actual impact location. Actual impacts arise from known and
definite impacts to a resource, whether temporary or permanent.
Impacts may be described as point‐source (i.e. highly localized) or non‐
point (i.e. widespread or diffuse). CEQA analyzes three types of effects:
direct, indirect, and cumulative. Direct effects occur at the place and at
the same time as the project implementation (e.g., ground disturbance,
tree removal, etc.). Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable effects
that occur at different times or places (e.g. impacts that occur due to
the proposed action but beyond the footprint of a project or activity).
Cumulative effects are two or more effects that compound together or
increase other environmental impacts.
The existing condition or environment baseline describes the
environmental setting, ecology, and resources prior to a proposed
activity. Capturing a broad, expansive Area of Potential Effect for
analysis allows a more stable baseline to be compared against evolving
concepts of what is or is not included in a proposed project. Temporal
An example of a project
having an indirect effect may
include installation of a new
trail that may cause an
increase or decrease in
preserve visitation.
An example of a project
having a direct effect may
include the removal of select
trees or other vegetation to
construct new bridge
footings within a riparian
area resulting in the need for
replacement plantings.
An example of cumulative
impacts using the above
examples would be removal
of the riparian vegetation
compounded with an
increase in visitor usage that
may together cumulatively
affect water quality and/or
future wildlife usage at the
project site.
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
94
loss is an impact arising from a delay between an impact and
compensatory mitigation.
CEQA analyzes potential impacts based on whether the impact is
significant or substantial and mitigation is developed to reduce those
impacts to less than significant. During the CEQA process, a project is
evaluated using an environmental checklist form to determine if
(potential or actual) significant environmental effects require more
robust environmental analysis (such as an Initial Study or Environmental
Impact Report) that considers one or more reasonable alternatives.
Project activities assessed under CEQA adhere to mitigation
requirements through the implementation of a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan or Program.
CEQA defines mitigation as:
A. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action.
B. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of
the action and its implementation.
C. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the impacted environment.
D. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time through
preservation and maintenance activities.
E. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments.
Activities that require permits from local, state and federal agencies
incorporate CEQA mitigations as permit‐related mitigations. The
permitting agencies, however, have different mitigation frameworks
consistent with their missions and enabling statutes and may use the
CEQA mitigations where they deem them satisfactory as part of issuing
permitting terms, conditions, and requirements.
Through the California Endangered Species Act and Section 1602 of the
Fish and Game Code, CDFW analyzes whether a potential impact is
substantial and adverse and includes measures in permit agreements to
protect fish and wildlife resources. These may include administrative,
construction, biological, compensatory, and reporting measures.
The Coastal Commission
uses a mitigation framework
similar to CEQA, and also
incorporates special
conditions such as requiring
that proposed development
(within the coastal zone) use
the least environmentally
damaging feasible
alternative. This practice
goes above and beyond
practices by other entities
that may select any project
alternative as long as
impacts are mitigated.
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
95
USFWS evaluates project impacts to species on the likelihood the
project adversely affects a species, and the likelihood the project
jeopardizes the continued existence of a species. USFWS considers
direct, indirect, interrelated, and interdependent effects. USFWS then
issues conservation measures to avoid and minimize effects and
authorizes an amount and extent of take of a species. Take, as defined
by the Endangered Species Act, is ‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.’
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) are a form of permit from USFWS
that authorize incidental take of federally listed species and establishes
a formal mitigation approach, usually at a large, regional scale. HCPs
are intended to fulfill the Endangered Species Act and include a
conservation strategy to compensate for impacts on covered species.
Mitigation measures under an HCP include preservation via acquisition
or conservation easement of existing habitat, enhancement or
restoration of a degraded or former habitat, creation of new habitat,
establishment of buffer areas around existing habitat, modifications of
land use practices, and restrictions on access.
Through the Porter‐Cologne Act and Clean Water Act, the SF RWQCB
analyzes projects through the potentially affected beneficial uses, the
significance of impacts to Waters of the State, whether the project
violates state water quality standards, and determines whether the
project conforms to the state’s no‐net‐loss policy for wetlands. The
water quality certification then includes a wide range of conditions.
The ACOE analyzes the dredge and fill of the Waters of the US and
issues terms and conditions to authorize projects. Waters of the US vary
widely from the innermost portion of a small stream to most of the San
Francisco Bay. ACOE shares a joint responsibility with SF RWQCB to
administer the Clean Water Act in California in wetlands and stream
systems. Most District projects qualify for a Nationwide Permit (a
standardized permit) and must adhere to the relevant conditions. All
projects must demonstrate they have first avoided, then minimized, and
finally compensated for impacts to waters. ACOE also must consult with
USFWS and SHPO. SHPO reviews the ACOE consultation and evaluates
whether projects will adversely affect a historic resource.
The state and federal
agencies responsible for the
environment issue two types
of permits: individual permits
that cover a discrete project
and ‘programmatic’ permits
that cover large areas, many
types of activities, and last 5
or more years.
Incidental take is an
authorization and permit
from USFWS that allows
take of listed species where
the activity’s take is
incidental to, and not the
purpose of, carrying out of
an otherwise lawful activity.
An HCP must accompany an
application for an incidental
take permit.
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
96
While CEQA and permitting agencies have different definitions and
frameworks, including the precise use of the term ‘mitigation’, the
principles of mitigation are shared. The main difference is that CEQA
mitigations are approved, monitored, and reported by the CEQA lead
agency, which is usually the District in the case of District‐led projects.
Mitigations required through permitting are ultimately approved by the
permitting agencies yet monitored and reported by the lead agency.
Although not expressly mitigation measures, implementation measures
from other chapters of these RM policies and other BMPs can act as
mitigations outside of the CEQA/permitting framework. That is, work
done in conformance with the RM policies achieves the objectives of
the mitigation policy, even where no mitigation is required by law,
CEQA, or permit.
MITIGATION GOALS, POLICIES, AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Goal M- Avoid and minimize adverse impacts to natural
and cultural resources to the maximum feasible
extent and use mitigation for all other unavoidable
impacts. Couple mitigation with high priority
restoration when feasible.
Policy M-1 Review and consider all applicable District Policies,
programmatic permits, and CEQA documents to develop the
project scope, incorporating the following practices (listed in
in order of priority): avoidance, minimization and/or
mitigation of potential impacts.
Refer to Board Policies, including but not limited to the
Basic Policy, and other applicable Resource Management
Policy Chapters.
Review applicable resource agency programmatic permits
and/or programmatic CEQA documents to determine if the
project can be covered using existing avoidance,
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
97
minimization or mitigation measures to reduce the need for
compensatory mitigation.
Policy M-2 Identify and evaluate sensitive resources to determine the
least impactful project design that meets the project goals
and objectives.
Develop a brief and inclusive project description.
Define the maximum Area of Potential Effect.
Survey, identify, and map sensitive ecological and cultural
resources within the project area.
Analyze how different project alternatives may avoid or
impact existing resources.
Analyze other activities within the watershed and/or
Preserve to understand the net effect of the proposed
project.
Compare potential impacts against the feasibility, cost, and
project goals and objectives (including long term
maintenance and monitoring).
Document the basis of design and why the project is the
least environmentally impactful alternative.
The basis of design can be informed by the CEQA review
process and/or an alternatives analysis conducted during
permitting review.
Policy M-3 Evaluate and incorporate measures that minimize the
effects of the project on the sensitive resources.
Refine the project description into a sequential narrative
and refine the resulting Area of Potential Effect.
Conduct further detailed and site-specific surveys of natural
and cultural resources as needed to adjust and refine the
project design to avoid and minimize project impacts.
Define and quantify the temporary, permanent, potential,
and actual impacts of the project to the extent feasible.
The basis of design
integrates engineering,
constructability, costs, and
environmental
considerations to explain
the rationale behind the
selected project and why
other alternatives do not
sufficiently meet the project
goals.
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
98
Adjust the project scope, extent, seasonality, duration, or
other measures to minimize actual or potential impacts to
the resources.
Policy M-4 Develop a compensatory mitigation strategy as a measure
of last resort.
Review the temporary and permanent impacts.
Evaluate onsite mitigation for short-term and long-term cost
efficiencies, habitat benefit, physical capacity, and staff
resources.
Evaluate existing voluntary restoration projects for potential
use as mitigation, including vegetation management for
resiliency work (e.g., wildland fire, climate change, and/or
invasive species removal).
If the overall impacts and associated mitigations are
substantial, review other voluntary restoration work that the
District may plan or conduct in the watershed or Preserve
that can mitigate the impacts and/or result in a ‘net
environmental benefit’.
When applying restoration and/or recovery work to
compensate for project impacts, select high priority
species, habitats, populations, and ecological processes
first, preferably in high conservation value areas, including
Conservation Management Units, to maximize the regional
net environmental benefit.
When onsite mitigation is not feasible, evaluate the
appropriateness of implementing mitigation work in off-site
locations (refer to ‘like for like’ as described above)
Prioritize facilitating or supporting regionally significant
restoration projects, as defined by a recovery plan,
watershed plan, or other collaborative planning document,
when using compensatory mitigation funds.
Ensure that baseline mitigation ratios are correctly
proportioned by accounting for both the uncertainty
inherent in mitigation work and the anticipated probability of
success.
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
99
If no other options are cost effective and feasible, search
for partner agencies or conservation organizations that may
facilitate third-party mitigation. Consider those that support
a Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat
Conservation Plan, Regional Conservation Investment
Strategy or other regional conservation planning.
Policy M-5 Weigh the mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting costs and impacts alongside the project benefits.
After defining a third-party compensatory mitigation
strategy, evaluate the sum of all mitigation costs
(construction expenses, biological or cultural monitoring,
revegetation, compensatory mitigation, and post-
construction monitoring).
If the overall impacts and associated mitigation costs are
substantial, determine whether revisiting the project goal(s)
and scope is warranted.
Consider a recommendation to alter or withdraw the
project.
Policy M-6 When needed, evaluate compensatory mitigation
proposed by the District for purchase or implementation on other
properties.
Confirm if the project is using the least environmentally
damaging and feasible alternative.
If no feasible option or habitat within District lands is
available for which to mitigate for an impact, consider a
recommendation to alter or withdraw the project.
If after evaluation no feasible alternative or option exists,
funding of or implementing off-site mitigation may be
considered.
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
100
Policy M-7 When third-party compensatory mitigation is proposed by
outside parties to the District, evaluate proposals using criteria that
aligns with the District’s Mission, Goals, and Policies.
District analysis of third-party proposals will include a
summary of the request, a description of the third-party
project (“proposed project”), and the required mitigation. ,
and a finding that the project and mitigation will likely result
in a long-term benefit to the affected resource.
Evaluation criteria of third-party proposals shall include:
o Alignment with District Mission, Policies, and
Goals
Does the proposed project support the
District’s mission?
Does the proposed project provide a public
benefit?
Does the proposed project align with the Basic
Policy and Good Neighbor policy?
Is the project proponent’s mission aligned with
the District and do they have a track record of
environmentally sensitive projects?
o Proximity to District Lands and Regional
Context
Is the proposed project located within the
District’s boundaries or sphere of influence, or
within the larger nine-county Bay Area region?
Is the proposed project at an appropriate
scope and scale for the site and/or region?
Will the proposed project directly affect District
lands or surrounding ecosystems?
o Public, Partner, and Social Implications
What are the potential impacts and/or benefits
to the public and our partners? What are the
potential impacts and/or benefits to under-
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
101
resourced and/or vulnerable communities and
to Native American tribes?
Is there public support for or opposition to the
project and/or to the proposed mitigation?
Does the project offer opportunities to
strengthen relationships or partner with
outside agencies, non-profit organizations,
and other groups?
Does the project improve or reduce public
access opportunities?
o Low-impact Project Design and Appropriate
Mitigation
Does the proposed project use the least
impactful, practicable alternative and if not, did
the proponent first consider how to avoid and
minimize impacts to the greatest feasible
extent? Are impacts temporary or
permanent? Are the impacts too large to
offset?
What are the sources of funding, conditions
imposed, monitoring and oversight
requirements, and timeline?
Are the mitigation funds too small to be useful?
Is the mitigation project consistent with an
existing Preserve Plan, Use and Management
Plan and/or an existing CEQA document?
Will the mitigation project require the District to
allocate resources to design, peer review, or
monitor the mitigation work?
Does the District already have a voluntary
restoration project in mind or one that requires
additional funding that would be a good
match?
o Ecological Impact vs Value
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
102
Is the affected species for which mitigation is
proposed present at the area of impact or do
they only have the potential to occur in the
area?
Does the Area of Potential Effect and the
proposed off-site mitigation fall within critical
habitat, or is part of a habitat linkage, climate
refugia, or another sensitive habitat?
Does the proposed mitigation:
benefit a sensitive species population,
habitat assemblage, and/or multiple
species?
facilitate regional restoration priorities
and/or recovery of species?
restore or provide ecological system
function(s)?
promote long-term health of the
ecosystem or provide resource
benefits?
help meet priority land conservation
and management goals?
support the goals of a Natural
Community Conservation Plan, Habitat
Conservation Plan, Regional
Conservation Investment Strategy or
other regional conservation plan?
Policy M-8 Recommend third-party compensatory mitigation that fulfill
District goals and meet District criteria.
Evaluation criteria will be used to determine whether to
further consider outside proposals for acceptance of
mitigation funds and/or mitigation work on District lands.
Projects are ranked against the evaluation criteria.
Although not all projects will meet every criterion, projects
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
103
must be able to provide a clear benefit to the District to be
considered for acceptance.
The value of the outside mitigation funds or proposed
mitigation work determines the level of approval authority.
External mitigation valued at greater than the General
Manager’s signing authority requires Board approval.
Staff findings and recommendations are forwarded to the
approving authority. Recommendations will be based on
the (ranked) criteria and the particulars of the proposed
project and associated compensatory mitigation. Projects
that do not meet minimum criteria, do not provide a clear
public benefit, and/or are controversial may be denied.
Staff will review and ensure a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, or Program is in place before accepting
funds or mitigation work.
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
MITIGATION
104
This page intentionally blank
Attachment 2
Mitigation Chapter
New terms and definitions proposed to be added to the Resource Management Policies Glossary:
Actual impacts - arise from known and definite impacts to a resource, whether temporary or
permanent.
Advance mitigation - 1) a form of mitigation (compensation) implemented before an impact occurs. 2) a
science-based approach to identify mitigation opportunities early in the planning process prior to the
design and permitting phases to identify higher-quality mitigation opportunities and/or those that
support regional conservation priorities.
Alternatives analysis - 1) the evaluation of the different project choices or actions available to achieve a
desired objective. It is an analytical comparison of different factors, including environmental impacts,
operational cost, risks, effectiveness etc. 2) A process of completing an alternatives analysis under the
Clean Water Act that requires demonstration and determination that the proposed project is the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative. 3) Under the California Environmental Quality Act,
when completing an Environmental Impact Report, an alternatives analysis is required and describes a
reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental
impacts while substantially attaining the basic objectives of the Project or Program.
Area of Potential Effect (APE) - the larger area surrounding the project activity location that
encompasses ancillary features such as staging, access routes, refueling stations and other features that
may be affected incidentally.
Avoidance - to cause no potential impact while undertaking a proposed action. Avoidance involves
deliberate and thoughtful planning to evaluate and document the strategies that will be used to prevent
impacts to the resources as a result of a proposed activity.
Basis of design - documents the principles, assumptions, rationale, criteria, and considerations used for
the calculations and decisions required during design of a project, system, or other activity.
Compensatory mitigation - measures taken to offset the unavoidable impact remaining after avoidance
and minimization actions are taken. Compensatory mitigation involves either the restoration,
establishment, enhancement and/or preservation of impacted habitats or waters on or off site.
Conservation easement – a voluntary, legal agreement that permanently limits uses of the land in order
to protect its conservation values. A conservation easement is one option to protect a property for
future generations absent of having fee title to that land.
Cumulative effects - changes to the environment caused by the combined impact of past, present and
future human activities and natural processes. Cumulative effects to the environment are the result of
multiple activities whose individual direct (or indirect) impacts may be relatively minor but in
combination with others result in significant environmental effects.
Direct effects - effects that occur at the place and at the same time as project implementation (e.g.,
ground disturbance, tree removal etc.)
ATTACHMENT 3
Direct take - immediate injury or death to one or more individuals of one or more species as a result of
project activities.
Ecological Resiliency- the ability of an ecosystem to maintain a dynamic equilibrium of nutrient cycling
and biomass production after being subjected to damage caused by an ecological disturbance.
Ecological Restoration - the process of returning land that has been degraded or disturbed into
functional habitat and processes to accelerate the recovery of an ecosystem.
Enhancement - the process of altering a habitat to improve one or more specific ecosystem condition(s)
and/or function(s).
Environment baseline - the existing condition that describes the environmental setting, ecology, and
resources prior to a proposed activity.
External mitigation - mitigation that results from a project led by another agency involving District-
owned lands either for project implementation (such as the flood detention basin at Rancho San
Antonio) and/or as a site to implement mitigation required from one of their offsite projects (such as
Valley Water mitigation implementation at Hendrys Creek).
Formal mitigation banks - areas of potential restoration that consolidate compensatory mitigation of
many upcoming projects, thus avoiding temporal loss, and are regulated by the agencies that oversee
them.
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP)- a form of permit from USFWS that authorize incidental take of
federally listed species and establishes a formal mitigation approach, usually at a regional, large scale.
Indirect effects - are reasonably foreseeable effects that occur at different times or places (e.g. impacts
that occur due to the proposed action but beyond the footprint of a project or activity).
Informal mitigation banks - areas of potential restoration that consolidate compensatory mitigation of
many upcoming projects, thus avoiding temporal loss, without being regulated as a formal mitigation
bank.
Internal mitigation- results from either a District-led project occurring on District-owned lands or from a
District-led project not on District lands (such as the Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trails Project).
Least environmentally damaging and feasible alternative - a term that comes from the Clean Water Act
for a practicable alternative that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem than other
proposed project alternatives.
Lead Agency - the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving
a project. The lead agency will decide whether a project is subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) or is categorically exempt, and if subject to CEQA, what level of environmental
analysis/document will be required for the project. The lead agency is responsible for preparing the
appropriate CEQA document.
Like for like mitigation - meaning impacts to one habitat, species, or function are compensated for with
a similar (if not identical) replacement (e.g. if one large oak tree is removed it is replaced with one large
oak tree at a suitable site - most likely onsite, but in some instances may be located offsite).
ATTACHMENT 3
Minimization - modifying the way an activity is to be undertaken in order to reduce the potential or
actual impact to a resource. Minimization is the next preferred method to reduce project impacts when
a potential impact cannot be completely avoided.
Mitigation - a single or a suite of measures that minimizes, or effectively eliminates the impact(s) of a
given activity on the environment. Project mitigations may come from California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), state and federal permits, or county or local ordinances.
Mitigation (or Conservation) banks - a system where landowners can permanently create certain
habitats targeting specific listed species or other regulated features such as wetlands in order to use
these features for actions anticipated to occur in the future for which mitigation will be required.
Landowners can create banks to offset their own impacts or may sell the mitigation credits to other
parties causing impacts in similar ecosystems elsewhere.
Mitigation credits - units of habitat that are preserved or protected (typically measured in area) that
may be used, purchased or sold to offset impacts from an action for which mitigation is required.
Mitigation Credit Agreement (MCA) - formal agreement that creates mitigation credits by implementing
conservation or habitat enhancement actions identified in a California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) approved Regional Conservation Investment Strategy. Credits developed under an MCA may be
used as compensatory mitigation for impacts under CEQA, the California Endangered Species Act, and
the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan or Program (MMRP) - specifies what the mitigation is, the
entity responsible for monitoring the program, and when in the process it should be accomplished. The
MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 during
implementation of mitigation measures which requires the Lead Agency, for each project that is subject
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to monitor performance of the mitigation measures
included in any environmental document to ensure that mitigation does, in fact, take place.
Mitigation ratio - defined as the number or extent of compensatory restoration efforts, relating the
scale of impact to a greater scale of restoration.
No-net-loss policy - a principle by which counties, agencies, and governments strive to balance
unavoidable habitat, environmental and resource losses with replacement of those items on a project-
by-project basis so that further reductions to resources may be prevented.
No project alternative - refers to 1) a project alternative whereby the impacts, costs, and staff resources
necessary to implement the project consistent with the project goals outweigh the benefit to the
District, resulting in a recommendation to not implement the project. 2) the potential impacts that may
result from not undertaking the project (e.g. a culvert continuing to cause erosion without replacement).
On-site mitigation - refers to working within or immediately adjacent to the Area of Potential Effect to
implement the compensatory restoration and is the generally preferred standard for both the District
and most permitting agencies.
Off-site mitigation - refers to compensatory mitigation distant from the area of impact.
Permanent impacts - those impacts that convert habitat or affect resources in a durable fashion.
ATTACHMENT 3
Potential impacts - impacts that cannot be ruled out or confirmed definitively until some future
assessment is completed or the work is implemented.
Potentially significant impact(s) - based on substantial evidence, a project (or portion of project) is
determined to have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA and therefore the
environmental impact requires mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Recovery - is the process that stops the decline of an endangered or threatened species by removing or
reducing threats and ensures the long-term survival of the species. Recovered habitat (natural or
restored) has documented use by target and non-target native organisms within a suite of healthy
ecosystem functions. Once a target species is recovered, protection under the Endangered Species Act is
no longer necessary.
Regional Conservation Investment Strategy - a voluntary, non-regulatory, non-binding conservation
assessment that includes information and analyses of important species, ecosystems, protected areas,
and habitat linkages at the USDA ecoregion scale and may include more than one ecoregion regional
and must be approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(Regional) net environmental benefit (net benefit) - the gains in value of environmental services (such
as species and/or habitat enhancements) or other ecological properties (ecologic functions such as
improved hydrologic connectivity) that are attained by an action minus the value of
adverse environmental effects caused by the action that result in an overall improvement or net benefit
to the environment at a regional scale.
Restoration action, activity, or project - An action, activity, or project whose primary purpose is to
improve habitats and/or waters and has measurable environmental benefits.
Temporary impacts - those which do not result in a durable change or are short-term in nature.
Temporal loss - is an impact arising from a delay between impact and compensatory mitigation.
Third-party mitigation - refers to another entity either causing an impact requiring compensatory
mitigation that is facilitated on District lands or facilitating compensatory mitigation outside of District
lands on the District’s behalf.
Voluntary restoration - restoration undertaken for the sake of the underlying species, habitat, or
process that is not a result of a CEQA and/or regulatory required mitigation.
ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX B. PROJECT
MANAGEMENT APPROACH
This appendix outlines the Project Management Approach to prevent
and/or reduce environmental impacts that may occur with District Projects:
District projects should be managed to prevent and/or reduce environmen-
tal impacts through 1) avoidance, 2) minimization, 3) internal mitigation
and 4) purchase of external mitigation credits (in that order). Under the
Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency and ACOE apply
these mitigation types sequentially. This sound management practice is
also undertaken by the District to proactively reduce the need for mitigation
by using best management practices and designing projects to first avoid
impacts, and if impacts cannot be avoided, minimize those impacts
through the use of mitigation.
AVOIDANCE
The first principle of the policy is avoidance, which directs District staff to
document potential impacts to the resources and then to consider how to
avoid those resources during the planning process. Avoidance is achieved
through an analysis of appropriate and practicable alternatives and evalu-
ating the impact footprint. This can mean physically working around a
given resource or shifting the timing of the project. At times, a potential
impact cannot fully be avoided regardless of how the project is designed
or implemented. The same biological and cultural richness that motivated
the District to protect and restore the land also creates a sensitive ecolog-
ical and complex regulatory environment within which to operate. Full
avoidance is often more achievable in degraded areas.
MINIMIZATION
If a potential impact cannot be totally avoided, then minimization is a way
of modifying an activity to reduce the potential or actual impact to a re-
source. Minimization directs District staff to consider how to alter the pro-
ject’s scope, scale, or duration to lessen a potential or actual impact.
Common avoidance
measures include
conducting activities away
from avian nesting locations
or deferring implementation
until nesting season is over
or until young have fledged.
A common example of an
unavoidable potential
impact is encountering a
dispersing adult California
red-legged frog in upland
habitat. Although the
federally threatened frogs
are rarely encountered in
that ecosystem, the
potential for an encounter
cannot be eliminated.
A n environmentally
beneficial pond restoration
project can minimize
potential impacts through
careful planning within an
inherently sensitive and
highly regulated area;
complex mitigation
measures may include
biological monitoring and
species relocations. Other
times, a one-hour training
from a biologist to
construction staff can fulfill a
minimization measure. may
be required.
Attachment 4
Measures include shifting where or when the activities occur, changing the
type of equipment to be used, or modifying the project scope or scale. The
extent to which an activity or project can be modified to minimize impacts
while meeting the project goals varies considerably. Some permits call for
an alternatives analysis requiring demonstration and determination that
the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
The extent of avoidance and minimization directly affects the scale and
cost of compensatory mitigation, i.e. measures taken to offset the una-
voidable impact(s) remaining after avoidance and minimization actions are
taken. Multiple types of mitigation are available to minimize, compensate,
and/or restore the environment.
There is inherent uncertainty in whether mitigation will fully replace the
functions that are lost from an impact. As a result, mitigation ratios must
be increased commensurately with the risk that a one-to-one mitigation
ratio will not achieve the designated compensatory goal (e.g. planting two
trees to replace the loss of one mature tree hedges against the loss of a
replacement tree over time due to drought, competition, etc.). Baseline
mitigation ratios account for the uncertainty inherent in all mitigation work
to achieve “no net loss” of sensitive community functions even if some
(relatively small) portions of the mitigation fail to achieve the desired con-
ditions.
TYPES OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
When a potential or actual impact is deemed necessary, unavoidable, and
has been minimized to the greatest practical extent by the District, com-
pensatory restoration measures are taken.
Compensatory mitigation can be the most expensive form of mitigation,
and involves either the restoration, establishment, enhancement and/or
preservation of impacted habitats or waters either onsite, offsite, or a com-
bination of the two. It frequently takes the form of revegetation and plant-
ings. Growing pathogen-free nursery plants, collecting native, local seed
onsite, weeding, watering, monitoring, ensuring plant survival, and report-
ing on the effectiveness of the compensatory mitigation all require time
and money.
An environmentally
beneficial pond restoration
can minimize potential
impacts through careful
planning within an
inherently sensitive and
highly regulated area;
complex mitigation
measures may include
biological monitoring and
species relocations. Other
times, a one-hour training
from a biologist to
Attachment 4
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICY DOCUMENT
APPENDIX B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Compensatory mitigation concepts include:
A. Like for like, meaning impacts to one habitat, species, or func‐
tion must be compensated for with a similar if not identical re‐
placement. For example, if a project removes riparian vegeta‐
tion, planting riparian vegetation will likely be required as miti‐
gation. This is also known as ‘In Kind’ mitigation. ‘Out of Kind’ is
the direct opposite, where different habitat types are recreated
than those impacted.
B. A Mitigation ratio can be defined as the number or extent of
compensatory restoration efforts, relating the scale of impact to
a greater scale of restoration. Usually 1:1 for low quality habi‐
tats or temporary impacts and as high as 10:1 for difficult to re‐
place habitats. For example, removal of a large, mature tree
could require planting three to six times as many seedlings.
C. On‐site mitigation refers to working within or immediately adja‐
cent to the area of impact to implement the compensatory res‐
toration and is generally preferred by most permitting agencies.
This can be the simplest method of compensatory mitigation
but may not be feasible if the site is not practical for restoration
(e.g. the area is too remote for efficient management, or the
site does not have the space for the required restoration).
D. Off‐site mitigation refers to compensatory mitigation distant
from the area of impact. The general permitting agency prefer‐
ence is to mitigate as close as possible to the area of impact,
preferably within the same watershed or Preserve if on‐site mit‐
igation is not possible.
E. Third‐party mitigation refers to another entity either causing an
impact requiring compensatory mitigation that is facilitated on
District lands or facilitating compensatory mitigation outside of
District lands on the District’s behalf. Third‐party mitigation is
discussed in greater detail below.
No mitigation banks exist
within the District’s service
boundary except for
saltwater wetlands in San
Francisco Bay. The Central
Valley, by contrast, has
many privately held
mitigation banks for vernal
pools and other species.
California has the most
mitigation banks in the
nation.
The Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan and Habitat
Agency function similarly to
a mitigation bank within their
defined HCP area.
Mitigation for impacts to
species that do not or are not
likely to occur in highly
degraded areas result in less
efficient use of mitigation
funds. In this case, using off-
site mitigation can fulfill the
permitting and mitigation
requirement and result in
higher net environmental
benefits.
Attachment 4
F. Conservation or Mitigation banks are a system where landown‐
ers can permanently create certain habitats targeting specific
listed species or other regulated features such as wetlands to
anticipate mitigations that may be required in the future or to
sell as credits. This can be achieved through an informal process
(e.g. defining a tree restoration area) or to sell the credits (i.e.
units of habitat typically measured in area) created by the miti‐
gation (or conservation) bank through a formal process to other
parties who are causing impacts elsewhere in the region. Infor‐
mal mitigation banks are areas of potential restoration that
consolidate compensatory mitigation of many upcoming pro‐
jects, thus avoiding temporal loss, without being regulated as a
bank. Formal mitigation banks are regulated by the agencies
that oversee them.
G. Regional Conservation Investment Strategy and Mitigation
Credit Agreements A mitigation credit agreement (MCA) is de‐
veloped under a California Department of Fish and Wildlife‐ap‐
proved Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS). The
RCIS Program encourages a voluntary, non‐regulatory regional
planning process to facilitate higher quality conservation out‐
comes and includes an advance mitigation tool. An MCA is de‐
veloped in collaboration with CDFW to create mitigation credits
by implementing conservation or habitat enhancement actions
identified in an RCIS. MCAs create credits that may be used as
compensatory mitigation for impacts under CEQA, the California
Endangered Species Act and the CDFW Lake and Streambed Al‐
teration Program. Any person or entity (including the District)
may enter into an MCA with CDFW to create credits and then
use, sell or otherwise transfer these mitigation credits upon
CDFW’s finding that the credits were created in accordance with
the RCIS program requirements. A CDFW‐approved Santa Clara
County RCIS was developed to help ensure that conservation
and habitat enhancement actions are occurring in an informed
and strategic manner to achieve the highest degree of conserva‐
tion benefit at a regional scale.
H. No project alternative refers to a staff recommendation
whereby the impacts, costs, and staff resources necessary to
implement the project consistent with the project goals
Attachment 4
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICY DOCUMENT
APPENDIX B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
outweigh the benefit to the District, resulting in a recommenda‐
tion to not implement the project or to substantially revise the
project goals.
THIRD-PARTY MITIGATION
Third-party mitigation is complex and nuanced because it can involve im-
pacts to habitats outside of District lands (or potentially the District’s
sphere of influence). Off-site compensatory mitigation for these impacts
may be the only possible or most preferable mitigation approach espe-
cially for private landowners or other government agencies who do not
own multiple areas of similar habitat. District lands could benefit from re-
ceiving compensatory mitigation from a third party to facilitate additional
restoration beyond the current capacity of the District. Third-party mitiga-
tion can also come in the form of grant funding, matching funds, or other
measures that support District activities to acquire conservation ease-
ments and/or fee-title or pursue voluntary restoration projects.
Historically, the District has, with a few exceptions, completed its compen-
satory mitigation within District lands. Defining the circumstances in which
off-site, third-party mitigation is preferable requires consideration of the
nature of the impacts, the cost of restoration, the benefit of restoration, and
other factors. While the primary focus of the RM policies is on District ac-
tivities and practices, it is also the primary lens through which to evaluate
outside parties’ activities and policies. The same drivers that may cause
the District to involve a third-party in compensatory mitigation can be used
to evaluate a request from an outside party to support or conduct mitiga-
tion on District lands.
RESTORATION
Site specific mitigation may reduce impacts of a specific action or im-
prove a site-specific condition, but rarely provides regional or ecosystem-
wide benefit. However, ecological restoration is an intentional activity in-
itiated by the District that accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with
respect to its health, integrity, and sustainability and goes above and be-
yond mitigation or enhancement of a localized site. To fulfill the Dis-
trict’s mission to protect and restore the natural environment and pro-
vide regional net-positive environmental benefits (producing greater
Restoration encompasses
all activities that restore an
ecosystem, including those
required by a mitigation and
voluntary restoration,
which is implemented solely
for the purpose of resource
enhancement.
Stanford University has
funded trail projects on
lands outside of the
university, including District
lands, through its General
Use permit with the County
of Santa Clara to mitigate
for the loss of public
recreation and open space
opportunities on Stanford
lands resulting from their
development.
Attachment 4
benefits at a landscape scale), the District places strong emphasis on im-
plementing high priority restoration and recovery work focused on spe-
cific sensitive habitats, populations, and ecological processes in high con-
servation value areas.
Whereas mitigation must offset impacts from a project to ensure no net
loss of habitats or waters, a restoration project has the primary purpose
of improving habitats and waters and has measurable environmental ben-
efits. When coupled with a restoration project or component, a compensa-
tory mitigation action may include additional habitat or watershed improve-
ments beyond what are required by permits or CEQA to seek a ‘net posi-
tive’ benefits to the environment. Some of the factors that affect
whether restoration actions are feasible or advisable include available
physical space, cost, and ecological benefit. High quality restoration
and habitat enhancement sites are carefully evaluated and prioritized be-
fore selection. As a result, high priority sites may not always be lo-
cated near or within the footprint of the project that causes the original
ground disturbance, and instead may be located elsewhere in areas of
high conservation value where restoration would be the most beneficial
at regional, watershed, and ecosystem scales to achieve a high net posi-
tive environmental benefits.
Restoration projects are frequently located in or adjacent to rich habitats
and often require avoidance and minimization measures for incidental im-
pacts and at times compensatory mitigation to complete, even though the
project action itself is overall beneficial for the environment (i.e. even a
voluntary restoration project can include a mitigation component if a re-
source will be affected by the restoration work). An important planning
strategy is to combine various public access and/or repair projects with
habitat restoration projects to allow the District to focus its mitigation work
on high-value restoration sites for the highest net-positive environmental
return for the time and funding allocated toward the mitigation work.
The District conducts many voluntary restoration projects each year, from
small scale invasive plant removal to large scale restoration with heavy
equipment. Some of these projects may require mitigation and some may
not. A small-scale volunteer activity removing invasive plant species such
as French broom by hand may not have any adverse impacts to the envi-
ronment and may be able to move ahead without mitigation. Larger resto-
ration projects, such as decommissioning an old road, may involve heavy
equipment working near a stream and require mitigation to offset incidental
impacts. At times, public access or other development projects require
Opening Mount Umunhum
involved both a
development project (new
site amenities, parking and
trails) that required
mitigation, as well as a
habitat restoration project
(recontouring the summit
and repopulating with native
plants). Installing regulatory-
required mitigation plantings
within the native plant
restoration area reduced the
need for additional
mitigation planting sites and
furthered two parts of the
District’s mission: natural
resource restoration and
public enjoyment and
education.
Attachment 4
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICY DOCUMENT
APPENDIX B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
compensatory mitigation often in the same areas as voluntary restoration
projects.
Conservation Management Units (CMUs) are protected areas designated
by the District as areas of high restoration and conservation priority. CMUs
are defined in Board Policy 4.01 “Acquisition & Maintenance of District
Lands”, Section E as: “areas within preserves, or possibly entire pre-
serves, which because of certain criteria limiting their use, are planned and
subsequently managed primarily for preservation of natural resources and
viewshed.” CMUs are frequently the focus of voluntary restoration projects
and off-site compensatory mitigation because of their high-quality habitats.
Attachment 4
Questions staff may ask to determine how well a proposed mitigation project meets Midpen Board approved
evaluation criteria:
o Alignment with District Mission, Policies, and Goals
Does the proposed project support the District’s mission?
Does the proposed project provide a public benefit?
Does the proposed project align with the Basic Policy and Good Neighbor
policy?
Is the project proponent’s mission aligned with the District and do they have a
track record of environmentally sensitive projects?
o Proximity to District Lands and Regional Context
Is the proposed project located within the District’s boundaries or sphere of
influence, or within the larger nine-county Bay Area region?
Is the proposed project at an appropriate scope and scale for the site and/or
region?
Will the proposed project directly affect District lands or surrounding
ecosystems?
o Public, Partner, and Social Implications
What are the potential impacts and/or benefits to the public and our partners?
What are the potential impacts and/or benefits to under-resourced and/or
vulnerable communities and to Native American tribes?
Is there public support for or opposition to the project and/or to the proposed
mitigation?
Does the project offer opportunities to strengthen relationships or partner with
outside agencies, non-profit organizations, and other groups?
Does the project improve or reduce public access opportunities?
o Low-impact Project Design and Appropriate Mitigation
Does the proposed project use the least impactful, practicable alternative and
if not, did the proponent first consider how to avoid and minimize impacts to the
greatest feasible extent? Are impacts temporary or permanent? Are the
impacts too large to offset?
What are the sources of funding, conditions imposed, monitoring and oversight
requirements, and timeline?
Are the mitigation funds too small to be useful?
Is the mitigation project consistent with an existing Preserve Plan, Use and
Management Plan and/or an existing CEQA document?
Will the mitigation project require the District to allocate resources to
design, peer review, or monitor the mitigation work?
ATTACHMENT 5
Does the District already have a voluntary restoration project in mind or one
that requires additional funding that would be a good match?
o Ecological Impact vs Value
Is the affected species for which mitigation is proposed present at the area of
impact or do they only have the potential to occur in the area?
Does the Area of Potential Effect and the proposed off-site mitigation fall within
critical habitat, or is part of a habitat linkage, climate refugia,
or another sensitive habitat?
Does the proposed mitigation:
benefit a sensitive species population, habitat assemblage, and/or
multiple species?
facilitate regional restoration priorities and/or recovery of species?
restore or provide ecological system function(s)?
promote long-term health of the ecosystem or provide resource
benefits?
help meet priority land conservation and management goals?
support the goals of a Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat
Conservation Plan, Regional Conservation Investment Strategy or
other regional conservation plan?
ATTACHMENT 5
March 9, 2022
Board Meeting 22-08
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, March 9, 2022
The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Government Code
section 54953(e) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Resolution 21-33. All Board
members and staff participated via teleconference.
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION
President Kersteen-Tucker called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Real Property Manager Mike Williams,
Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION.
Government Code 54956.9(d)1)
Marosi v. MROSD
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 21-CV-388981
2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code
Section 54957(b)(1)
Title of Employee: Controller
General Counsel
General Manager
Public comment opened at 5:00 p.m.
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth reported no public
comments were submitted for the closed session.
Meeting 22-08 Page 2
Public comment closed at 5:00 p.m.
The Board convened into closed session.
ADJOURNMENT
President Kersteen-Tucker adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to the close of the regular meeting at 6:50 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
President Kersteen-Tucker called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, and
Curt Riffle
Members Absent: Larry Hassett and Pete Siemens
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna
Chan, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan
Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer
Woodworth, Land & Facilities Manager Brandon Stewart, Property
Management Specialist II Susan Weidemann, Rangeland Ecologist Lewis
Reed,
President Kersteen-Tucker announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Government
Code section 54953(e) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Resolution 21-33,
allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a
meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The
public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this
meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting
agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District
website. President Kersteen-Tucker described the process and protocols for the meeting.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson reported the Board met in closed session, and the Board
authorized General Counsel in a vote of 7-0-0 to defend the District in Marosi v. MROSD, Santa
Clara County Superior Court case number 21-CV-388981.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Meeting 22-08 Page 3
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth reported no public
comments were submitted.
Director Siemens joined the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hassett absent)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Director Kishimoto pulled Item 4 from the Consent Calendar.
Director Kersteen-Tucker pulled Item 5 from the Consent Calendar.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent
Calendar, except for items 4 and 5.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hassett absent)
1. Approve the February 23, 2022 and March 3, 2022 Board meeting minutes
2. Approve Claims Report
3. Resolution Declaring Laserfiche to be a Trusted System for Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District Records, and Adopting Procedures for the Management of Records
and the Automation of Retention Requirements (R-22-32)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution declaring Laserfiche to be a “Trusted
System” for document retention purposes and approving procedures for the management of
records.
4. Records Retention Schedule Amendment (R-22-36)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving revisions to the records
retention schedule and authorizing destruction of certain records consistent with California law.
Director Kishimoto requested the retention of the District’s biweekly reports be amended to be
kept permanently.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to adopt the
revisions to the records retention schedule with the modification to records series GM-001 to
require these records to be kept permanently.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hassett absent)
Meeting 22-08 Page 4
5. Grazing Tenant Selection and Lease for Big Dipper Ranch in Skyline Ridge Open
Space Preserve (R-22-35)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to:
(1) execute a conservation grazing lease with RC Bar Ranch, LLC., for the Big Dipper Ranch
Grazing Unit in Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve and (2) extend the lease for an additional
five-year term if the tenant remains in good standing.
President Kersteen-Tucker requested additional information regarding the request for proposals
process and selection criteria for the grazing tenant.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided a summary of the recent history of grazing
tenants on the site, request for proposals, and the selection criteria used when evaluating the
grazing tenant proposals.
Land and Facilities Manager Brandon Stewart described the reasons the recommended grazing
tenant was selected.
Director Riffle requested and received additional information on why the recommended tenant
was selected over the other two grazing proposals received.
President Kersteen-Tucker supported the selection of local grazing tenants and stated this must
be balanced with various aspects of the conservation grazing program.
General Manager Ana Ruiz stated staff is working to develop the agricultural policy, which will
provide opportunities for the public and the Board to comment on the conservation grazing
program, including the Request for Proposals process for grazing operations and associated the
selection criteria.
Public comment opened at 7:44 p.m.
Ron Sturgeon commented that the selection of the recommended tenant goes against the
District’s mission to support and preserve coastal agriculture. Mr. Sturgeon stated local ranchers
submitted proposals for the property and were not selected. Mr. Sturgeon urged the Board to not
approve the General Manager’s recommendation and recommended the selection process be
delayed for a year and evaluated as part of the agricultural policy.
Celia Cummings, owner of a portion of the Big Dipper Ranch, stated water should not be
diverted to the cattle operation.
Ms. Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record.
Davy Davidson opposed awarding a conservation grazing lease stating grazing is harmful to the
environment due to the large amounts of methane emitted by cattle.
Mohan Gurunathan opposed conservation grazing due to the large amounts of methane emitted
by cattle stating the methane is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and global warming.
Public comment closed at 7:52 p.m.
Meeting 22-08 Page 5
President Kersteen-Tucker inquired why the tenant selection was not delayed.
Mr. Malone reported on upgrades to the site and amendments to the grazing policy that make the
ranch more viable to operate at this time.
President Kersteen-Tucker stated she does not see a pressing reason to move forward with
awarding the conservation grazing lease at this time. President Kersteen-Tucker spoke in support
of including a selection criterion related to local preference.
Ms. Ruiz stated that if the item does not move forward, staff will review the grazing lease
process and can potentially bring that process to the Board for discussion prior to bringing
forward the agricultural policy.
Mr. Malone commented on the potential impact of delaying awarding the grazing lease,
including the financial viability of the operation, infrastructure improvements needed for the site,
and ongoing encroachment of plants on the site.
President Kersteen-Tucker spoke in support of building relationships with agricultural producers
on the San Mateo Coast, acknowledging the unique nature of the agricultural community there.
Mr. Stewart commented on the unique nature of the property that has a short season for grazing
(ends in June), which makes it difficult to find a tenant.
Director Siemens spoke in support of using the entirety of the selection criteria when the item
returns to the Board for consideration.
Ms. Ruiz recommended bringing the selection criteria back as part of the agricultural policy
process given that the grazing season for the affected property will end soon in June.
No Board action taken.
6. Minor Contract Amendment for Engineering Services with Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc., for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Repair Project (R-22-34)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize a contract amendment in the amount of $12,500
with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., of Emeryville, California to provide engineering and
project closeout services for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Repair Project, bringing the
contract to a not-to-exceed grand total amount of $226,330.
7. Teleconferenced Board Meetings Pursuant to the Brown Act and Assembly Bill 361
(R-22-33)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution affirming findings on the continued
need for remote teleconferenced public meetings pursuant to AB 361.
BOARD BUSINESS
8. Legislative Position Recommendations (R-22-37)
Meeting 22-08 Page 6
Governmental Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg provided the staff presentation describing the
District’s bill-tracking and disposition process. Mr. Hugg reviewed the District’s proposed
legislative priorities for the upcoming 2022 legislative session, including supporting efforts to
remove the sunset provision for the District’s use of design-build, supporting ecologically
sensitive vegetation management, supporting re-creation of the trails commissions and recreation
trail funding, promoting wildlife connectivity, etc.
Board members requested and received clarification regarding various legislative bills.
Director Siemens suggested making AB 2362 a priority 1 bill for the District.
Director Holman requested supporting AB 2889 as a priority 1 bill for the District.
Public comment opened at 8:51 p.m.
Ms. Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record.
Giulianna Pendleton requested the Board support the Center for Biological Diversity and
Wildlands Network’s Safe Roads and Wildfire Protection Act (AB 2344) and the Santa Clara
Valley Audubon Society’s light pollution bull (AB 1710)
Public comment closed at 8:53 p.m.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the
recommended list of legislative positions for the 2022 state legislative session with the additions
of AB 2362 and AB 2889.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hassett absent)
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDA
• Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Connectivity Project Cooperative Agreement
Merav Vonshak thanked the District for their work on the project and provided an update on
newt deaths along Alma Bridge Road.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Riffle reported the Planning and Natural Resources Committee met on March 1, 2022 to
discuss the Hawthorns area site planning process. The Planning and Natural Resources
Committee also met on March 8, 2022 to review information collected to date on e-bikes.
B. Staff Reports
Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner provided an update on the District’s 50th anniversary
media plan and upcoming events.
Meeting 22-08 Page 7
C. Director Reports
Director Holman reported she attended a meeting of the San Francisco Restoration Authority and
$1M was allocated at the meeting for work to be completed near Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve.
Director Siemens reported he attended the quarterly meeting of the Santa Clara County Special
District’s Association on March 7, 2022 and learned more about Valley Water’s initiative to
install wildlife cameras in the area to monitor wildfire activity.
Director Kishimoto reported she and Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan walked the
proposed Stevens Creek Trail alignment.
Directors Riffle and Holman reported they attended Santa Clara County Supervisor Simitian’s
annual meeting regarding Lehigh Quarry.
ADJOURNMENT
President Kersteen-Tucker adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District back into closed session at 9:14 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
President Kersteen-Tucker adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District back at 10:12 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 22-10
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2022 Fiscal Year 20-21 EFT:63.44%
Fiscal Year 21-22 EFT:66.30%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
4213 EFT 03/04/2022 11272 - George Bianchi Construction Inc Mt Um Radar Tower Repair Proj / Alma Cultural Landscape Rehab - Jan 2022 181,907.77
82373 Check 03/11/2022 10413 - Downtown Ford M239 - Ford F150 Hybrid 40,766.43
4226 EFT 03/04/2022 12013 - Rincon Consultants, Inc.Aquatic Resources Delineation at SR, PR, RR OSP- 07/27/21 -12/31/21 28,840.83
82375 Check 03/11/2022 12147 - Nova Partners, Inc.Admin Office Reno Project Construction Mgmt & Peer Review - Jan 22 27,970.00
4253 EFT 03/11/2022 12107 - San Francisco Estuary Institute Science Advisory Panel Consultant Nov- Dec 2021 24,996.53
4233 EFT 03/11/2022 10616 - BKF Engineers ADA Compliance Memo for New AO/Phase II ADA Barrier Removal Proj - 12/27/21 - 1/23/22 23,351.00
4236 EFT 03/11/2022 *10214 - Delta Dental Dental Benefits - Mar 2022 18,773.60
4231 EFT 03/04/2022 10978 - Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, Inc Los Gatos Botanical Surveys 15,945.00
82366 Check 03/11/2022 10606 - Ascent Environmental Inc CEQA Services for LHC Red Cabin Demo 11/1/21 - 01/31/22 14,521.25
4235 EFT 03/11/2022 12077 - Conservation Metrics, Inc.Acoustic Survey Analysis, Marbled Murrlett, NS Owl, and Barred Owl 14,041.00
4240 EFT 03/11/2022 11998 - Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation Ravenswood Revegetation and Plant Maintenance 11,596.20
82367 Check 03/11/2022 11386 - Bob Murray & Associates Executive Recruitment: Assist General Counsel 12/22/21 - 2/14/22 11,401.89
4228 EFT 03/04/2022 10099 - San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory American Badger & Burrowing Owl Habitat Suitability Study - Jan 22 9,000.00
4247 EFT 03/11/2022 11617 - Mig, Inc.Bio On-Call, Task 1, Bergman Structure Demolition, Russian Ridge 8,952.97
82358 Check 03/04/2022 11420 - Doug Edwards 25 acres Mow/chop coyote brush Tunitas Creek Ranch 8,200.00
4246 EFT 03/11/2022 *10419 - Lincoln National Life Insurance Co.AD&D/Life/LTD - Mar 2022 7,962.76
4234 EFT 03/11/2022 11318 - Confluence Restoration Plant Site Maintenance for BCR/Alma/Webb Creek - 1/1/22 - 2/4/22 6,645.00
82372 Check 03/11/2022 12199 - CVE Demolition, Inc.Billingsley and Burton Properties Demolition 5,900.36
82362 Check 03/04/2022 12064 - U.S. Mobile Health Exams, Inc.Mandatory fit test (34) & audiograms field staff 2/8/22 - 2/10/22 5,550.00
4242 EFT 03/11/2022 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Environmental Consulting - Federal Permits 5,159.35
82361 Check 03/04/2022 11141 - Jarvis Fay & Gibson LLP Legal Services Rendered - Jan 2022 4,980.50
4252 EFT 03/11/2022 10099 - San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory Grant Prog - App Science Bird Nest Research - 10/1/21-12/31/21 4,881.57
82363 Check 03/04/2022 *10309 - Verizon Wireless Wireless Service - 01/13/22 - 02/12/22 4,438.89
4210 EFT 03/04/2022 *10032 - Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Services & Disinfecting for AO, FFO, SFO, and CAO - Feb 2022 4,269.00
4216 EFT 03/04/2022 11906 - Law Offices of Gary M. Baum Legal Services Rendered - Jan 2022 4,216.00
4211 EFT 03/04/2022 11748 - Environmental & Energy Consulting State Legislative Consulting - Jan 2022 3,750.00
4237 EFT 03/11/2022 12165 - Edquist Davis Exhibits Fabrication Support - 11/1/21 - 01/31/22 3,260.00
4218 EFT 03/04/2022 11664 - LSQ Funding Group, L.C.Admin Support Clout Staffing- 01/31/22, 02/06/22 3,168.00
4220 EFT 03/04/2022 12151 - Navia Benefit Solutions Emp bene plan claims admin(FSA,commuter)& 125 plan doc Jan 2022 3,131.43
4208 EFT 03/04/2022 10616 - BKF Engineers Survey Services for Ravenswood Trail - 12/27/21 - 1/23/22 2,835.00
4249 EFT 03/11/2022 12151 - Navia Benefit Solutions Emp bene plan claims admin(FSA,commuter)& 125 plan doc - Feb 2022 2,707.07
82359 Check 03/04/2022 12014 - ECAST Engineering Inc.Culvert and Float 2,700.00
4222 EFT 03/04/2022 *10212 - Pinnacle Towers LLC Tower lease-Skeggs Point - Mar 2022 2,650.00
4221 EFT 03/04/2022 12020 - Panorama Environmental, Inc.WFRP Phase II - CEQA - 12/07/21 - 01/27/22 2,526.25
4255 EFT 03/11/2022 *11730 - Standard Insurance Company RV County of Santa Clara MROSD Life Ins Benefit - Mar 2022 2,478.62
4205 EFT 03/04/2022 11434 - 2M Associates Interim Coastal Area Field Office - Consultant Services 2,360.00
4243 EFT 03/11/2022 10794 - John Northmore Roberts & Associates Bear Creek Stables Improvements Permitting Consultant 2,162.16
4212 EFT 03/04/2022 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Stihl Pole Pruner/Stihl chainsaw/ Chains (3)2,071.87
4224 EFT 03/04/2022 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service FFO - BIT's WT2 M207 T49 M22 M15 M29 T7 M26 T37, M237, M226, M233 1,980.00
82368 Check 03/11/2022 10289 - Cal-Line Equipment, Inc.T38 Annual Service on Chipper 1,851.61
4250 EFT 03/11/2022 12088 - PSP, an RRD Company Popular Annual Financial Report - (Qty 106)1,807.81
4241 EFT 03/11/2022 10222 - Herc Rentals, Inc.Mini Excavator Rental (RSA)1,790.67
4257 EFT 03/11/2022 *10213 - Vision Service Plan-CA Vision Premium - Mar 2022 1,544.88
82357 Check 03/04/2022 11075 - County of Santa Clara Dept. of Environ. Health County hazardous material permit fee - Billingsley Project 1,526.00
82360 Check 03/04/2022 11701 - Eric Gouldsberry Art Direction PAFR/ACFR Work - 11/3/21 - 1/31/22 1,350.00
82369 Check 03/11/2022 10014 - CCOI Gate & Fence SA-Pheasant Rd - residence gate srvc/repair, replace batteries/SA 07 Gate Service 1,327.09
4254 EFT 03/11/2022 *10136 - San Jose Water Company SAO Water Service - 4/5/21 - 6/2/21 1,272.85
4207 EFT 03/04/2022 10813 - Almaden Midpen Preserve Mtn Lion Research Signs, 24" x 36 (qty 30)1,261.49
4230 EFT 03/04/2022 10146 - Tires On The Go 4 Tires for P119 1,254.90
4244 EFT 03/11/2022 **10555 - Knapp Architects Hawthorns Roof Replacement / Alma Construction Administration Service - Jan 2022 1,090.00
4227 EFT 03/04/2022 11479 - Rootid, LLC Website Maintenance Retainer Hours 8 1,080.00
4229 EFT 03/04/2022 *10136 - San Jose Water Company Water Service - SAO, BCR - 12/1/21 - 2/4/22 1,075.19
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to
reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and
ensure quicker receipt by vendors
page 1 of 15
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 22-10
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2022 Fiscal Year 20-21 EFT:63.44%
Fiscal Year 21-22 EFT:66.30%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to
reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and
ensure quicker receipt by vendors
4256 EFT 03/11/2022 11751 - Stillwater Sciences Hawthorns Waters Delineation - 1/3/22 - 1/30/22 1,071.00
4217 EFT 03/04/2022 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.La Honda Creek Trails Bio/Cultural Survey Prep - Jan 2022 971.50
4219 EFT 03/04/2022 12187 - MSR Mechanical, LLC SFO Quarterly PM Service 898.50
82354 Check 03/04/2022 10289 - Cal-Line Equipment, Inc.T45 Track Chipper knives / Chipper Knife Sharpener 864.99
4239 EFT 03/11/2022 11789 - Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc.Laserfiche System Design Revisions 780.00
4209 EFT 03/04/2022 12109 - Christine Sculati Grants Program Support - Jan 2022 750.00
82378 Check 03/11/2022 10182 - Royal Brass Inc Hoses for Mower 585.72
82356 Check 03/04/2022 11224 - County of Santa Clara Communications Dept Repair of radio equipment Tomita Tower 504.00
4232 EFT 03/04/2022 12050 - Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.Sierra Azul New Ranger Housing - 11/3/21, 11/4/21, 12/8/21 500.75
4206 EFT 03/04/2022 10001 - Aaron's Septic Tank Service Septic Tank Service (FFO)495.00
82364 Check 03/04/2022 11852 - Western Exterminator Co.Extermination Services (RSA-Annex/Garage) 1/11/2022 462.65
82355 Check 03/04/2022 10014 - CCOI Gate & Fence BCR - Gate/entry repair 460.00
82376 Check 03/11/2022 10176 - RE Borrmann's Steel Co Metal for Shop Air Hose (SAO)/Materials for water tanks (SA- Mt Um)436.94
82377 Check 03/11/2022 10194 - Reed & Graham Inc Straw Bales for Seeding Project (RSA)433.13
82371 Check 03/11/2022 11156 - Clean Earth Environmental Services LLC HazMat Waste Drop-Off 356.86
82352 Check 03/04/2022 12041 - A T & T Mobility (FirstNet)EOC Emergency phones - Feb 2022 355.40
4225 EFT 03/04/2022 10093 - Rene Hardoy Gardening Services for AO 325.00
82353 Check 03/04/2022 12177 - Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc.BCR - Repair streetlight over BCR road crosswalk 302.50
4245 EFT 03/11/2022 12133 - Law Office of Alan Seltzer Level II Parking Citation services 292.50
82370 Check 03/11/2022 10168 - Cintas FFO & SFO shop rag cleaning/exchange service 220.70
4223 EFT 03/04/2022 12060 - Preferred Alliance, Inc.11-20 Off-Site Participants Testing (13) - Jan 2022 139.36
4251 EFT 03/11/2022 10029 - RIFFLE, CURT Mileage Reimbursement Sep - Dec 2021 110.32
4214 EFT 03/04/2022 11492 - Hawk Design & Consulting LHC Agricultural Workforce Housing Project - 9/30/21, 11/2/21 100.05
82379 Check 03/11/2022 10175 - RV Cloud Company Parts for Air System (SAO)54.03
4238 EFT 03/11/2022 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Air Filters for Pumper 50.09
4215 EFT 03/04/2022 11991 - Kunz Valley Trash, LLC Garbage Service 20000 Skyline - Jan 2022 48.40
82365 Check 03/11/2022 11880 - A T & T (Calnet3)Mt. Um Safety Phone 01/07/22 - 02/06/22 46.16
82374 Check 03/11/2022 10186 - Federal Express Delivery fee for mailing test AP checks to WF 39.70
4248 EFT 03/11/2022 10288 - Mission Valley Ford Truck Sales, Inc.Oil for Toter 35.33
Total of Payments:561,971.37
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HC = Hendry's Creek P### = Patrol Vehicle
SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail
AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space HR = Human Resources PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area
BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office
CAO = Coastal Area Office ISM = Invasive Species Management PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap
CC = Coal Creek LH = La Honda Creek RR = Russian Ridge SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill
DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LR = Long Ridge RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego
Hill
SR= Skyline Ridge
ECdM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio T### = Tractor or Trailer
ES = El Sereno M### = Maintenance Vehicle RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek
FFO = Foothills Field Office MB = Monte Bello SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill
FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pr MR = Miramontes Ridge SAO = South Area Office TW = Thornewood
GP = General Preserve OSP = Open Space Preserve SAU = Mount Umunhum WH = Windy Hill
Abbreviations
page 2 of 15
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT Wells Fargo Credit Card - Dec 2021
MEETING # 22-10
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2022
GL Date Amount Description
1/10/2022 18,494.00 CDFW Routine Maintenance Permit Fees - IPM projects
1/10/2022 14,956.74 Internet services for district offices - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 8,800.00 Short Term Rental for academy housing
1/10/2022 7,742.93 New tires for dump truck - M23
1/10/2022 5,214.00 Annual Fees for Citations Mgmt Sys - 1/8/22 - 1/7/23
1/10/2022 5,000.00 Bay Area Ridge Trail Council Agency Membership 2021-2022
1/10/2022 3,963.00 CDFW Routine Maintenance Permit Fees - general projects
1/10/2022 3,402.50 Annual waste discharge fee to DWR for routine maint agmt
1/10/2022 3,400.00 Rodent proofing at 13030 Skyline Blvd residence - 12/6
1/10/2022 2,985.10 Permit fee for 5050 El Camino Real AO Project
1/10/2022 2,875.08 District wide phone service - 11/16/21 - 12/15/21
1/10/2022 2,520.00 DEI Conference Cornell University
1/10/2022 2,356.00 AO - Install thermostat/heat pump control
1/10/2022 2,311.46 JD 210 rental for Stables Loop Trail BCR - Oct 2021
1/10/2022 1,787.00 Maintenance for M229
1/10/2022 1,746.88 Weekly water delivery Toto Residence - Nov 2021 (4 trips)
1/10/2022 1,708.29 Green Waste/Compost - Nov 2021
1/10/2022 1,622.87 Pine Cone Lumber - Invoice #128817 - SFO small tools
1/10/2022 1,500.00 Initial Deposits for academy for Bustos, Rozo and Vitti
1/10/2022 1,391.29 Food for holiday party
1/10/2022 1,379.27 T28 Bobcat Repairs
1/10/2022 1,287.75 New pedestrian counters
1/10/2022 1,237.62 Maintenance for P108
1/10/2022 1,148.51 Replaced left arm bushings - ATV4
1/10/2022 1,121.14 BCR Stables rock driveway repairs
1/10/2022 1,000.00 Deposit for repair estimate - Bobcat
1/10/2022 991.37 Hand Tools for SAO Shop/Black EMO Box
1/10/2022 934.12 Propane wall heater for SFO bunkhouse
1/10/2022 907.03 MB ADA water spigot
1/10/2022 880.25 5050 El Camino tax bill - APN# 984-19-478-91
1/10/2022 878.23 5050 El Camino tax bill - APN# 984-19-429-00
1/10/2022 848.94 Parts for bobcat mule UTV repair
1/10/2022 848.35 Waste Disposal - Nov 2021
1/10/2022 812.85 Shop supplies
1/10/2022 718.59 FFO - 3 restroom fan replacements
1/10/2022 661.35 FOOSP Sanitation Services - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 645.75 The State Bar of CA - Membership Renewal 2022 - Stevenson
1/10/2022 635.00 Concentra invoices
1/10/2022 620.00 LCW Annual Law Update Conference
1/10/2022 617.44 SAK Sanitation Services - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 522.81 Air compressor and belt sander
1/10/2022 520.90 Sharp Copies - Printer Costs 9/28/21 through 10/30/21
1/10/2022 514.49 Smith-Rapley Demo Permit
1/10/2022 508.59 Chain saw chain sharpener bench grinder
1/10/2022 500.00 2022 Salmonid Restoration Fed Annual Sponsorship
1/10/2022 491.73 Property Research Services - Nov 2021
1/10/2022 484.18 SAO Bench for Locker Room
1/10/2022 481.23 Diamond back binoculars for EMO vehicles - (2)
1/10/2022 475.70 Work gloves and drill bits
1/10/2022 474.62 Zoom Subscription for Board Meetings - Jan 2022
1/10/2022 465.00 The Wildlife Society Western Section Annual Conf
1/10/2022 460.00 SFO Debris box swap - Nov 2021
1/10/2022 450.00 Web hosting - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 444.88 SFO Garbage and recycle - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 442.69 BCR Open Space BC Stables ADA restroom - 12/17/21 - 1/13/22
1/10/2022 441.63 Hydraulic/Motor Oil Stock
1/10/2022 435.00 Monthly public storage fee - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 417.53 Water service 10/13/21 - 11/10/21 - AO
1/10/2022 402.43 Laptop dock and wireless headset
1/10/2022 402.00 AO - Boiler Heating Adjustment
1/10/2022 398.55 Artificial Holiday Tree / Floor Mats
1/10/2022 395.00 PTBA Conference 3/26/22 - 4/2/22
1/10/2022 382.77 Chain saw chaps (1) & orange safety helmets (2)
1/10/2022 381.62 Tools for SAO Shop / EMO Box
1/10/2022 374.82 Lunch for L&F Retreat
1/10/2022 374.58 Medial Supply Restock
1/10/2022 373.36 Ubco Bike Parts
1/10/2022 368.15 Supplies - Concrete Base for Bike Racks
1/10/2022 366.60 Laptop battery replacements x 6
1/10/2022 359.30 Tires for ATV 21 - (2)
1/10/2022 335.30 SFO shop supplies
1/10/2022 331.71 Garbage services at 16060 Skyline
1/10/2022 329.22 Flashlights for trainees
1/10/2022 325.92 6ft x 4ft Glass White Board for SAO Conference Room
1/10/2022 310.85 Annual Fees - State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 310.32 Annual Fees - State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 308.93 Annual Fees - State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 308.91 Annual Fees - State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 308.47 Annual Fees - State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 306.90 Annual Fees - State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 306.90 Annual Fees - State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 306.90 Annual Fees - State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 299.01 2 Faucets and Parts for RSACP Restrooms
1/10/2022 294.34 UCLA - Cont Ed of the BAR CEB Sub CA Const, Contracts, Defects
1/10/2022 292.14 Maintenance for P112
1/10/2022 284.36 Vacuum Cleaner for SAO
1/10/2022 282.45 Water Services for 897 La Honda - 10/27/21 - 12/23/21
1/10/2022 276.98 SA-MtUm Fencing Rental at Summit - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 276.98 Parcel Box for SAO
1/10/2022 275.89 Broom heads for bike brushes
1/10/2022 265.60 Restroom ADA repair materials
1/10/2022 259.00 Live Stream services for SFO NC Camera
1/10/2022 254.31 Shop Supplies
1/10/2022 247.48 Misc Supplies
1/10/2022 239.88 Annual Linkedin learning membership 12/7/21 - 12/7/22
1/10/2022 238.00 Email marketing - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 228.95 New office flags
1/10/2022 228.41 2 Digital Levels and Shop Supplies
1/10/2022 225.22 Uniform boot purchase
1/10/2022 225.00 SFO Backup Internet Service - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 223.21 Hydraulic hose repair
1/10/2022 222.32 Electrical Tools for SAO Shop
1/10/2022 220.94 LHC Toto Ranch - toilet replacement and parts
1/10/2022 220.81 Tools for SAO Shop / EMO Box
1/10/2022 218.00 LexisNexis Online Subscription - Nov 2021
1/10/2022 217.60 Holiday luncheon - Planning
1/10/2022 217.20 Outbound airfare - Jaskulak GFOA TreasuryMgmt Committee Mtg
1/10/2022 213.84 Microsoft Power Apps x 1
1/10/2022 208.91 Water service for 5050 El Camino - 10/13/21 - 11/10/21
1/10/2022 207.70 Helmet/chaps for new Ranger
1/10/2022 206.55 LED General Purpose linear light bulbs
1/10/2022 205.44 Tools for SAO Shop / EMO Box
1/10/2022 200.00 Remote admin tool x 1 month
1/10/2022 199.43 Water services for 895 La Honda Rd Thornewood
1/10/2022 195.00 Advanced Bat Acoustics Workshop
1/10/2022 191.87 16060 Skyline water service - 10/23/21 - 11/23/21
1/10/2022 190.93 Shop Supplies - pipe straps, laundry sink, primer
1/10/2022 185.82 Tool handles (10)
1/10/2022 185.00 Yard waste Ticket 1690144
1/10/2022 181.00 Yard waste ticket 1689899
1/10/2022 180.00 PA Team holiday lunch - 9 attendees
1/10/2022 180.00 Holiday lunch for nine IST staff members
1/10/2022 177.00 Supplies for Ravenswood Graffiti Project
1/10/2022 176.81 Office Supplies - pens, legal pads, batteries, markers
1/10/2022 174.80 Folding floor signs
1/10/2022 174.58 AO1 Oil filled radiators - (2)
1/10/2022 173.84 Shop Supplies for FFO
1/10/2022 170.86 RR, 3-4 PVC pipe, coupler, 90s. for Bergman water line
1/10/2022 170.40 Wireless mouse Hippus Handshoemouse
1/10/2022 165.35 Garbage Services - AO Nov 2021
1/10/2022 164.03 Uniform - boot purchased
1/10/2022 163.61 Oil for Fire Pumpers
1/10/2022 160.68 Monthly Shredding Services - Nov 2021
1/10/2022 157.04 Blue Def Fluid and Trailer Hitch for T059
1/10/2022 157.00 Yard waste Ticket 1689400
1/10/2022 153.39 Shipping web store - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 152.78 COVID antigen tests
1/10/2022 152.28 Return airfare - Jaskulak GFOA TreasuryMgmt Committee Mtg
1/10/2022 150.68 Tri-fold paper towels
1/10/2022 150.06 Heavy duty hand cleanser - (2)
1/10/2022 150.00 Leave No Trace Midpen Membership thru 12/22
1/10/2022 146.00 Yard waste Ticket 1689501
1/10/2022 144.90 FFO Coffee/Kitchen Supplies
1/10/2022 143.99 5050 El Camino tax bill - APN# 984-19-483-00
1/10/2022 143.61 FFO Shop Supplies
1/10/2022 143.17 Equipment for new recruits to bring to academy
1/10/2022 141.74 Rigid shop vacuum
1/10/2022 140.66 NR Dept Holiday Lunch: 9 Attendees
1/10/2022 140.00 E&C Holiday Team Luncheon (7)
1/10/2022 138.38 DHF Fencing Materials
1/10/2022 138.00 Yard waste Ticket 1690499
1/10/2022 137.68 Shop Supplies for FFO
1/10/2022 130.00 Yard waste Ticket 169031
1/10/2022 128.93 12120 Skyline water service - 10/23/21 - 11/23/21
1/10/2022 120.43 4411 Alpine Rd water service 11/9/21 - 12/9/21
1/10/2022 119.73 Flushometers and Parts for RSACP Restrooms
1/10/2022 116.54 Lumber for BCR Bat Box
1/10/2022 114.68 Meeting in Session Signs for SAO Conference Room
1/10/2022 112.00 Santa Clara County EMT re-cert fee
1/10/2022 110.29 Gas cards weren't working and had to use District Credit Card
1/10/2022 109.86 Power station Jump starter
1/10/2022 108.90 Adobe Illustrator x 1
1/10/2022 107.59 Trash picker uppers - (1)
1/10/2022 107.19 KN95 face masks for field use (2 pkg @ 10 ea)
1/10/2022 105.01 KN95 face masks - (2 pkg @ 10 ea)
1/10/2022 105.00 Yard waste Ticket 1690392
1/10/2022 104.72 COVID Testing Kits - (4)
1/10/2022 103.71 Office Supplies - boxes, paper, wall calendar, folders
1/10/2022 103.40 Name badges for staff (5)
1/10/2022 102.96 Employee recognition items
1/10/2022 102.81 Propane gas payment16060 Skyline
1/10/2022 102.64 Shop Supplies
1/10/2022 102.30 Annual Fees State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 102.30 Annual Fees State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 102.30 Annual Fees State Department of Water Resources
1/10/2022 102.14 Graffiti Remover
1/10/2022 100.11 Rodent exclusion - Purisima Residence
1/10/2022 99.95 Server room monitoring system 1 yr sub 12/1/21 - 12/2/22
1/10/2022 99.30 Various key duplications - (26)
1/10/2022 99.00 Interns CEQA Training
1/10/2022 98.49 Shop supplies for FFO
1/10/2022 93.23 Party favors for holiday party
1/10/2022 93.00 Yard waste Ticket 1690140
1/10/2022 89.32 Breakfast for LF Retreat Pt. 1
1/10/2022 88.46 Volunteer Field Equipment
1/10/2022 85.95 Bird Box Camera Parts Hardware Project# 69546
1/10/2022 85.00 The Wildlife Society Annual & Chapter Membership
1/10/2022 80.75 Embroidery - employee shirts
1/10/2022 75.00 MB campsite pay phone - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 75.00 Diesel fuel
1/10/2022 74.73 Diesel Fuel
1/10/2022 72.38 SFO Water system
1/10/2022 72.06 Water services for 555 Portola Rd SFO
1/10/2022 70.92 Blu-Ray Disks for EDMS backup - (25 pk)
1/10/2022 69.63 Blue DEF for M213, Battery for Welder - M221
1/10/2022 63.67 Lumber for BCR Bat Box
1/10/2022 63.15 Blue Def Exhaust Fluid for Diesels and Funnels
1/10/2022 62.14 DHF Hardware for Barn Doors
1/10/2022 61.91 Water services for 5050 El Camino - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 61.33 Restroom motion lights
1/10/2022 61.25 List Management - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 60.21 Tape and ink pads
1/10/2022 60.09 SFO Shop supplies
1/10/2022 60.00 Holiday Lunch for BA - $20 each for 3 ppl.
1/10/2022 60.00 QAC renewal fee for the Department of Pesticide Regulations
1/10/2022 55.78 TIG Welder Coupons
1/10/2022 55.26 FFO Shop Supplies
1/10/2022 54.91 Party favors for holiday party
1/10/2022 54.57 Public Meeting Name Plates for Newly Hired Managers
1/10/2022 54.55 Ergo item
1/10/2022 54.55 Ergo items - large keyboard tray
1/10/2022 54.24 SAO Coffee/Kitchen Supplies
1/10/2022 54.12 Misc.Tools and Supplies
1/10/2022 53.76 Freight Charge for Bike Racks
1/10/2022 52.89 Boot brush replacement parts
1/10/2022 50.00 FFO backup internet service x 1 month
1/10/2022 50.00 Public Notification Database
1/10/2022 50.00 Appreciation eGift Card for Tom Scannell - Volunteer
1/10/2022 50.00 Appreciation eGift for Claudia Newbold - volunteer
1/10/2022 49.50 Web forms - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 48.59 Ship radar gun for calibration
1/10/2022 46.95 Supplies for Ravenswood Graffiti Project
1/10/2022 46.92 Holiday lunch Finance Dept
1/10/2022 46.92 Shop Supplies
1/10/2022 46.46 Gas: Ranger Academy Colorado to California - Contreras
1/10/2022 45.33 SAO Material for Shop Tool Rack
1/10/2022 44.14 Hardware for Bike Racks
1/10/2022 43.63 Breakfast for L&F Retreat Pt. 2
1/10/2022 42.00 Stamps for FFO, Citation mail
1/10/2022 41.85 Smog for P50
1/10/2022 40.50 Gas: Ranger Academy Colorado to California - Contreras
1/10/2022 40.36 Tools for M23
1/10/2022 40.00 Gas: Ranger Academy Colorado to California - Contreras
1/10/2022 39.39 Web Analytics + Hotjar Fees
1/10/2022 39.24 50 Gift bags for docent recognition event
1/10/2022 38.61 Plumbing parts for truck pumper
1/10/2022 38.50 Smog check for P96
1/10/2022 38.20 Waterproof Paper for Outdoor Gas/Diesel Logs
1/10/2022 38.00 Alarm service fees - AO
1/10/2022 36.89 Gas purchase Wex card not working
1/10/2022 36.60 Volunteer Supplies
1/10/2022 35.98 Yearly planner and batteries
1/10/2022 33.87 Switch replacement for table saw
1/10/2022 32.79 Thermostat wall timer
1/10/2022 32.68 Concrete for Installation of Billingsly Gate
1/10/2022 32.24 FOOSP Water Conditioning Service - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 31.73 Gas: Ranger Academy Colorado to California - Contreras
1/10/2022 31.60 Gas: Ranger Academy Colorado to California - Contreras
1/10/2022 29.90 Dryer Idler Pulley
1/10/2022 29.00 Web Store - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 28.36 Note book planner
1/10/2022 27.99 National Brownie Day brownies and CPR training
1/10/2022 27.49 BCR open Space. BC Stables ADA restroom rental - Nov 2021
1/10/2022 25.86 Lubricant for Locks
1/10/2022 25.33 Spray Paint graffiti cleanup
1/10/2022 25.18 1470 Monte Bello Electricity
1/10/2022 25.00 Planning and Conservation League Conference
1/10/2022 25.00 Webinar software - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 25.00 Reg Planning & Conservation League virtual sessions Feb 2022
1/10/2022 24.54 SAO Tool Storage
1/10/2022 23.87 Shop Supplies for FFO
1/10/2022 23.06 Party favors for holiday party
1/10/2022 22.92 Key duplicates - (3)
1/10/2022 22.91 RSA 10698 Mora Drive, exterior paint
1/10/2022 22.00 Bagels for Staff
1/10/2022 21.86 Drill bits
1/10/2022 21.26 Paint for BCR Bat Box
1/10/2022 20.87 Party favors for holiday party
1/10/2022 20.71 AO1 File cabinet key copies (2)
1/10/2022 19.28 BCR Bat Shed Keys
1/10/2022 19.17 Gas: Ranger Academy Colorado to California - Contreras
1/10/2022 17.99 Web Translation - December 2021
1/10/2022 16.13 SA-Mt Um Radar Tower Keys - (5)
1/10/2022 15.46 Gas: Ranger Academy Colorado to California - Contreras
1/10/2022 15.32 Volunteer Supplies
1/10/2022 15.00 Badge holder shipping
1/10/2022 14.85 Ear pieces for handheld radios
1/10/2022 14.00 Monthly subscription to digital Mercury News group
1/10/2022 13.11 Bulbs for Tractor T27
1/10/2022 13.07 Small light bulds
1/10/2022 13.00 Volunteer Supplies
1/10/2022 12.95 Graphics software - Dec 2021
1/10/2022 11.99 BoD file storage
1/10/2022 11.14 Gas: Ranger Academy Colorado to California - Contreras
1/10/2022 10.96 Snacks for Staff
1/10/2022 10.25 Volunteer Supplies
1/10/2022 9.20 Postage to Return Ubco Bike Parts
1/10/2022 7.00 GIS request desk subscription
1/10/2022 5.45 Medical Supply Restock
1/10/2022 5.35 Lighter fluid
1/10/2022 0.17 QAC license renewal application.
1/10/2022 (40.47) Correction to Previous Months Overcharge
1/10/2022 (164.03) Return uniform boot purchase
1/10/2022 (785.70) Returned/CREDIT Bike Racks
1/10/2022 (1,000.00) Refund from equipment repair deposit - Bobcat
1/10/2022 148,234.39 Wells Fargo Bank Credit Card Dec 2021
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT Wells Fargo Credit Card - Jan 2022
MEETING # 22-10
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2022
GL Date Amount Description
2/8/2022 26,396.35 Redwood for Alma College railing and grape arbor.
2/8/2022 15,344.00 Teams Calling Licenses all users for new phone system
2/8/2022 11,731.54 Tuition Fees for Ranger Academy - Spring 2022 (Rozos)
2/8/2022 11,731.54 Tuition Fees for Ranger Academy - Spring 2022 (Bustos)
2/8/2022 11,731.54 Tuition fees for Ranger Academy - Spring 2022 (Vitti)
2/8/2022 4,896.00 Cybersecurity training renewal - FY23
2/8/2022 4,896.00 Cybersecurity training renewal - FY24
2/8/2022 4,658.98 50th Anniversary Staff T-Shirts
2/8/2022 4,635.70 VMWare software renewal - 7/1/22 - 3/31/23
2/8/2022 4,207.00 Shed structure removal at well decommissioning
2/8/2022 3,960.00 Rodent proof/clean up at 16891 Stevens Canyon Rd
2/8/2022 2,947.15 Nutanix support 1 year - 1/14/22 - 1/13/23
2/8/2022 2,873.94 District wide phone service - 12/16/21 - 01/15/22
2/8/2022 2,603.04 Vehicle maintenance - P94
2/8/2022 2,448.00 Cybersecurity training renewal - FY25
2/8/2022 2,448.00 Cybersecurity training renewal - FY22
2/8/2022 2,447.34 Vehicle Maintenance - P119
2/8/2022 2,435.33 SA-Woods Tr - Tractor Rental for Culvert Wrk -10/26/21-11/22/21
2/8/2022 2,384.22 SFO Annual Fire Extinguisher Service
2/8/2022 2,348.59 SFO Propane (large tank) - delivery 1/10/22
2/8/2022 2,304.81 Vehicle Maintenance - P102
2/8/2022 2,289.97 Vehicle maintenance for P105
2/8/2022 2,065.45 Pedestrian counters + border fee
2/8/2022 2,062.85 AED batteries - (13)
2/8/2022 2,041.31 SFO Propane (small tank) - delivery 1/10/22
2/8/2022 1,607.14 Crane Repair - M228
2/8/2022 1,545.23 VMWare software renewal - 4/1/22 - 6/30/22
2/8/2022 1,530.00 Winter 21-22 Views newsletter insert-Palo Alto Weekly & Almanac
2/8/2022 1,480.00 Computer inventory and helpdesk system 1 year 1/6/22 - 1/5/23
2/8/2022 1,388.76 HEPA filters for FFO and SFO
2/8/2022 1,377.45 M203 New tires
2/8/2022 1,244.72 P101 4 Tires Repair
2/8/2022 1,105.13 Dewalt drills/drivers
2/8/2022 1,066.72 Radio batteries for ranger radios - (qty 8)
2/8/2022 1,032.22 Replacement water heater/water line repair
2/8/2022 950.00 Regional Government Services Supervisors Online Academy
2/8/2022 942.34 Yamaha Mule service ATV20
2/8/2022 916.65 PCR tests ( 10-pack, qty 1)
2/8/2022 866.45 Law of Easements & Licenses in Land 2021-2
2/8/2022 852.27 ATV17 Kawasaki Mule Service
2/8/2022 845.65 Vehicle Maintenance - P118
2/8/2022 841.68 SFO Alarm services - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 763.00 At home PCR tests
2/8/2022 756.50 ADA restroom door closures
2/8/2022 666.20 4 Portable Battery Jump Packs
2/8/2022 664.99 Pressure washer parts
2/8/2022 664.87 Ear plugs/saw blades/shop brooms
2/8/2022 661.35 FOOSP - Sanitation Services - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 660.42 Dog waste bags
2/8/2022 636.96 AudioCode Teams Desk Phone x 2
2/8/2022 617.44 SA-Kennedy Tr - Sanitation Services - 1/1/22 - 1/28/22
2/8/2022 617.04 AudoCodes Teams Desk Phone/expansion unit
2/8/2022 613.80 Water Board Storm Water Permit Fee
2/8/2022 609.68 Antigen tests - (2-pack, qty 20)
2/8/2022 600.00 Stanford Leadership Class Fee - M. Shaw
2/8/2022 526.48 GFOA Winter Mtg Hotel
2/8/2022 520.22 M33 - Replacement Winch and Accessories
2/8/2022 504.33 ADA restroom door closures
2/8/2022 501.15 Old Hazmat Disposal Foothills area.
2/8/2022 491.73 Property Research Services Dec 2021
2/8/2022 475.00 2022 GFOA Annual Conference registration
2/8/2022 474.62 Zoom Subscription - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 461.95 Restroom TP Dispensers - Mt Um
2/8/2022 459.35 2 Trail Cameras
2/8/2022 450.00 Website Hosting - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 442.22 Vehicle Maintenance - P122
2/8/2022 436.72 Water delivery to Toto residence - Dec 2021
2/8/2022 435.94 FFO - Shop Vise
2/8/2022 435.00 Public Storage - Monthly Fee - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 420.00 2022 CA Natural Diversity Database renewal
2/8/2022 405.47 SFSU GIS Course
2/8/2022 395.00 Trailbuilders Conference Registration Fee
2/8/2022 395.00 Trailbuilders Conference Registration Fee
2/8/2022 391.84 Sharp Copies, Printer Costs, 11 machines - 10/30/21 - 11/30/21
2/8/2022 376.11 HVAC Filters for SFO - (qty 24)
2/8/2022 364.44 Rear Gate Piston Replacement - WT02
2/8/2022 360.00 Online course on water permitting - UC Davis Extension
2/8/2022 354.01 Water services - AO 11/11/21 - 12/10/21
2/8/2022 349.56 Propane services at 16060 Skyline
2/8/2022 334.16 Kubota 50 hour service ATV21
2/8/2022 333.30 HAZWOPER online training for employees
2/8/2022 332.34 Garbage services for 16060 Skyline
2/8/2022 332.34 Garbage Services for 16060 Skyline
2/8/2022 326.00 Recruitment Ad HR Technician on Calperla
2/8/2022 323.30 CDFW appl fee Districts Scientific Collecting Permit
2/8/2022 321.92 Polycom Teams desk phone x1
2/8/2022 321.92 Polycom Teams desk phone x1
2/8/2022 313.34 SAO - Tools for Shop
2/8/2022 298.60 Laptop batteries x 6
2/8/2022 284.42 FFO Shop Supplies
2/8/2022 280.00 Qualified Applicator Certificate with State DPR
2/8/2022 276.98 SA-MtUm - Fencing Rental at Summit - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 270.83 SAO - Tools for Shop
2/8/2022 265.89 Keys
2/8/2022 260.00 Pesticide License Renewal
2/8/2022 259.00 Live Stream Camera at Nature Center 1 month
2/8/2022 254.16 Battery for patrol truck - P102
2/8/2022 250.00 Wheel chipper transport - Peterson to SFO
2/8/2022 247.36 M201 - Replacement Wire Rope for Winch
2/8/2022 238.00 Marketing Email - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 229.41 SAO - Wheel Barrow
2/8/2022 225.00 SFO Backup Internet Service - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 225.00 SCCBA Membership Fee - Stevenson - 1/1/22 - 12/31/22
2/8/2022 222.98 Sharp Copies, Printer Costs, GM machine - 10/29/21 - 11/29/21
2/8/2022 218.90 Hotel for academy for two Rangers G. Rozo & N. Bustos
2/8/2022 218.00 LexisNexis Online Subscription - Dec 2021
2/8/2022 212.28 FFO - Coffee/Kitchen Supplies
2/8/2022 210.61 Shipping for webstore orders - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 202.92 Peltor hearing protection earmuffs - (12)
2/8/2022 200.00 Remote admin tool 1 month
2/8/2022 192.06 50th Anniversary Die - Cut Stickers
2/8/2022 183.00 Pruning shear/small tools
2/8/2022 177.83 Redwood for Alma College railing and grape arbor.
2/8/2022 175.00 Recruitment Ad - IPM Coordinator
2/8/2022 174.60 Chainsaw safety chaps
2/8/2022 174.36 6 Litter Sticks, 1 handsaw for P126, 1 grass shears for P123
2/8/2022 165.35 Garbage services - AO Dec 2021
2/8/2022 164.44 Doggie waste bags - (2 x case of 20)
2/8/2022 158.90 Hotel stop for Academy for one Ranger M. Vitti
2/8/2022 158.18 Polycom Teams speaker phone x1
2/8/2022 158.00 SAO - Plywood for Shop
2/8/2022 155.00 Recruitment Ad - IPM Coordinator on CSDA
2/8/2022 153.13 SAO - Concrete Tools
2/8/2022 152.03 SAO - Hand Tools and Wire Fence Stretcher
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Update - Miguel Perez
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Update - Miguel Perez
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Update - Miguel Perez
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO refresher training 3/22/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO refresher training 3/17/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO refresher training 3/9/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Training - 03/09/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Training - 03/17/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO training class - 03/09/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Training - 03/22/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO training class - 03/17/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO training class - 03/22/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Refresh Training - 03/09/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Refresh Training - 03/17/22
2/8/2022 150.00 FTO Refresh Training - 03/22/22
2/8/2022 147.97 Airfare - PARMA Conf. Feb 27-Mar 2
2/8/2022 145.00 Concentra services
2/8/2022 142.43 ES - Lumber for Gate Post
2/8/2022 141.84 FFO Shop Supplies
2/8/2022 134.01 Office Supplies
2/8/2022 132.77 DHF - Fencing Materials
2/8/2022 130.16 Antigen tests (2 - pack, qty 6)
2/8/2022 128.67 Shop Supplies
2/8/2022 126.12 FY 21-22 SJWC Vector control & SUSD special assess
2/8/2022 125.88 Power washer parts
2/8/2022 125.63 Volunteer Field Equipment
2/8/2022 125.00 Training seminar - Construction Mgr CMIT Level 1
2/8/2022 124.75 Steel stakes/anti fatigue mat
2/8/2022 114.39 Vehicle Maintenance - P124
2/8/2022 113.76 Computer headset x 2
2/8/2022 107.78 Monthly Shredding Services - Dec 2021
2/8/2022 107.21 Cow Tags and Gas Cans
2/8/2022 105.00 Pest control at 330 Distel
2/8/2022 100.65 New Manual for CAT Skid Steer
2/8/2022 100.00 Fastrak payment on account
2/8/2022 99.47 Thornewood lumber, Bolts nut & washers
2/8/2022 99.05 Cold Patch for Driveway Repair
2/8/2022 99.00 Recruitment Ad - IPM Coordinator. www.greenjobs.org Green Jobs
2/8/2022 98.28 Covers for water tank generators
2/8/2022 97.97 Replacement of lights
2/8/2022 91.14 FFO - Office Supplies
2/8/2022 91.14 Wood Working Tools and PPE
2/8/2022 90.25 Trailer hitch adapters for P126 and P127
2/8/2022 81.85 Parts for Tow Behind Blower
2/8/2022 81.79 T-Post Fencing Caps
2/8/2022 80.24 Bird Box Camera Fitting
2/8/2022 76.38 SFO Propane tank service fee - 1/6/22
2/8/2022 74.30 Rubber twist ties
2/8/2022 74.02 Angle grinder discs
2/8/2022 67.99 Water Services at 895 La Honda
2/8/2022 66.80 Fastrak payment on account
2/8/2022 61.91 Water services at 5050 El Camino - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 61.59 Heavy duty staple gun
2/8/2022 61.28 Screw driver set/decal remover
2/8/2022 61.25 List Management - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 59.98 Shop aprons
2/8/2022 56.78 BCR - Wood Milling Tools
2/8/2022 55.00 Recruitment Ad - IPM Coordinator
2/8/2022 54.55 Paint
2/8/2022 54.00 GFOA Winter Mtg SJC Airport Parking
2/8/2022 52.97 SAO - Shop Supplies
2/8/2022 154.50 Parking lot stormwater operation fees
2/8/2022 50.52 Adobe Acrobat DC x 1
2/8/2022 50.00 FFO Backup internet connection
2/8/2022 50.00 Public Notification Database
2/8/2022 50.00 Deposit for Hosking Barn Garbage service
2/8/2022 49.50 Website Forms - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 49.19 Masonry drill bit
2/8/2022 48.58 Postage to mail antigen test to covid pos employee
2/8/2022 45.91 Strap organizer/rubber ties
2/8/2022 44.91 Mailed 2 tires to UBCO for upgrades
2/8/2022 43.64 iPhone case for ranger phone
2/8/2022 43.60 2022 Planners for Leads
2/8/2022 42.99 URL Midpen.org - 2022
2/8/2022 42.92 FFO - Small Snake for Restroom
2/8/2022 42.00 Return doggie bags bought in error
2/8/2022 40.55 Field supplies
2/8/2022 40.00 200006 Skyline Bergman studio glass window repair
2/8/2022 39.83 Marking Paint and Hardner
2/8/2022 39.39 Website Analytics - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 39.36 Webstore Shipping - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 39.09 SAO - Hardware
2/8/2022 38.61 SAO - Shop Supplies
2/8/2022 36.98 Window glass replace DHF
2/8/2022 36.27 Spray paint and primer - vehicle tool rack
2/8/2022 35.74 Desk phone for call testing
2/8/2022 35.41 RSA - Hardware for Open Air Barn Bike Rack
2/8/2022 35.06 Sand Paper and Paint Hardener
2/8/2022 33.83 Volunteer Supplies
2/8/2022 33.81 Reference book - Native American history
2/8/2022 33.55 Kawasaki mule fuel gauge gasket
2/8/2022 32.25 Volunteer Supplies
2/8/2022 32.24 FOOSP - Water Conditioning Service - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 29.40 Supplies
2/8/2022 29.04 Anti slip tape
2/8/2022 29.00 Midpen webstore - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 26.66 Paint supplies - Mora garage
2/8/2022 25.00 Webinar Hosting - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 24.89 1470 Monte Bello electricity
2/8/2022 45.90 NTSI Distracted Driver Course
2/8/2022 21.79 Daily planner office supplies
2/8/2022 21.57 Door sweep for A-Frame residence
2/8/2022 20.72 Office supplies
2/8/2022 19.22 Restroom repair supplies - SA Mt Um
2/8/2022 19.00 Volunteer Supplies
2/8/2022 18.86 GFOA Winter Mtg Taxi Hotel to Airport
2/8/2022 18.82 GFOA Winter Mtg Taxi Airport to Hotel
2/8/2022 18.52 DHF RSA OSP window glass repair
2/8/2022 17.99 Website Translation - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 17.44 Spray Paint
2/8/2022 17.23 Office supplies
2/8/2022 16.05 UPS Shipping charges
2/8/2022 14.94 Frame for proclamation
2/8/2022 14.30 Toll payment for A93 - Ranger Academy in CO
2/8/2022 14.00 Mercury News Digital subscription - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 13.51 Window puttyrepair DHF
2/8/2022 12.99 Staff appreciation
2/8/2022 12.95 Graphics software - Jan 2022
2/8/2022 12.59 SFO snacks
2/8/2022 12.50 MROSD DOT Program
2/8/2022 11.99 Dropbox for BoD files 1 month
2/8/2022 20.44 Volunteer Supplies
2/8/2022 9.15 Blind spot side mirror - M85
2/8/2022 8.19 Conduit
2/8/2022 7.60 Cap Screw
2/8/2022 7.00 GIS request desk subscription
2/8/2022 6.55 Duct tape
2/8/2022 6.47 Desk top calendar office supply
2/8/2022 3.75 MROSD DOT Program
2/8/2022 2.45 Water services at 5050 El Camino
2/8/2022 (34.94) Credit for returned tools
2/8/2022 (204.82) BCR - Refund for Lumber
2/8/2022 (205.32) Pheasant Rd Residence - Returned 2 Screen Doors
2/8/2022 (332.34) Garbage Services for 16060 Skyline - refund
2/8/2022 195,029.57 Wells Fargo Bank Credit Card Jan 2022
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-39
Meeting 22-10
March 23, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Proposed Trail Name for Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Loop Trail
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed “Grasshopper Loop Trail” name for the former Sears Ranch Road loop
trail located in lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, which was unanimously supported
by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee.
SUMMARY
In preparation for the summer 2022 public opening of the newly constructed loop trail in lower
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve), the General Manager recommends the Board
of Directors (Board) approve the proposed trail name of “Grasshopper Loop Trail.” The
Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) reviewed the proposed trail name
on January 18, 2022 and voted unanimously to forward the trail name to the full Board. Pending
Board approval, the trail name would be implemented through new trail signs and maps.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan (Master Plan) Phase II
Trail Improvements, the Land and Facilities Department completed construction of the lower
loop trail in summer 2021. The trail originates at the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area and
connects to the Harrington Creek Trail, forming a 1.3-mile loop through grassland and redwood
forest ecosystems (Attachment 1). In preparation for the trail’s summer 2022 public opening,
staff presented the recommended trail name and two alternative names to LFPAC on January 18,
2022 (R-22-08). LFPAC unanimously voted to recommend the proposed “Grasshopper Loop
Trail” name to the full Board and requested staff incorporate trail junction numbers along the
loop trail concurrent with the mapping and signage updates.
The proposed “Grasshopper Loop Trail” name is consistent with Board Policy 5.01 for Site
Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition (Attachment 2), which states that Preserve trails shall
ordinarily be named after: a) geographical, botanical, or zoological identification, or b) historical
persons, uses, or events associated with the site. First, the name celebrates the Preserve’s
ecology, paying homage to two grassland-dwelling animals: grasshoppers and grasshopper
sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum), the latter of which is listed as a California Species of
Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accordingly, this trail name
presents an opportunity to garner public awareness for the importance of California grassland
ecosystems. Second, the name alludes to the ecological transitions trail users experience as they
traverse the trail, hopping from grassland to forest to grassland. Based on its alignment with
R-22-39 Page 2
Board Policy 5.01, its ecological congruence, and its layered meaning, the “Grasshopper Loop
Trail” is the preferred name for the lower loop trail.
FISCAL IMPACT
The addition of the trail name and trail junction numbers on new signs and maps is included in
the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget.
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
Actions related to this trail previously came before the full Board of Directors and to LFPAC at
the following public meetings:
• August 22, 2012: Board approved the Master Plan and associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
• April 11, 2018: Board approved an award of contract for engineering and design of two
new trail loops at La Honda Creek Preserve (R-18-37, meeting minutes)
• January 18, 2022: LFPAC forwarded their recommendation for the proposed trail name
to the Board (R-22-08, draft meeting minutes attached)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The selection of a trail name is not a Project as defined by CEQA. The Board previously adopted
an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Honda Creek Master Plan in
August 2012, which analyzed the implementation of the Phase II loop trail.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, staff would incorporate the new trail name and trail junction numbers
for the lower loop trail into the Preserve’s maps, District website, and trail directional signage
prior to the summer 2022 public opening.
Attachments:
1. Map of Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Loop Trail
2. Policy 5.01 Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition Policy
3. January 18, 2022 LFPAC Meeting Draft Minutes
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Department
Prepared By / Contact Person/ Graphics Prepared By:
Arianna Nuri, Planner I, Planning Department
Attachment 1
LA HONDA CREEK
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
Proposed Name:
Grasshopper Loop Trail
Shallow Pond (DR26)
Upper Turtle (DR19)
La H ond a Cr eek Open Space Preserve
Proposed Name:Grasshopper Loop Trail
Sears Ranch Road
Harrington Creek Trail
I$##Proposed Trail Junction (Note: Numbers will be added after a Preserve-wide trail junction number update)mi
0 0.1
Lower Tur tle (DR20)
0.2
Ha
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
Schoolhouse Pond (DR03)
anuri@ openspace.org
S
e
a
r
s
R
a
n
c
h
R
o
a
d
Mid p eninsula Re gion a l
Op e n Space Dis trict
(MR OS D)
2/8/2022
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a l egal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographi c f eatures.
Data S
ource(s): Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS,
AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS
User Community
$##
$##
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board Policy Manual
Site Naming, Gift, and Special
Recognition
Policy 5.01
Chapter 5 – Historical/Cultural
Effective Date: 8/25/93 Revised Date: 11/13/13
Prior Versions: 8/25/93, 9/14/94, 6/24/98, 9/12/01, 10/8/08, 1/13/10, 10/27/10
Board Policy 5.01 Page 1 of 4
I. SITE NAMING
All District site names and signs should be kept as simple and functional as possible. When a
property is acquired, either as an addition to an existing preserve or for the establishment of a
new preserve, a name will be recommended in the Preliminary Use and Management Plan. In
most cases, "open space preserve" is appropriate as part of the name; however, there may be
circumstances when another designation may be used. In some cases, a temporary name may
be retained until the next Comprehensive Use and Management Plan review.
A.Open Space Preserves
The name given to each open space preserve should be general enough to remain
suitable if the site is enlarged, but specific enough to give its location some significance.
Properties added to an open space preserve may not always be contiguous with that preserve.
1.Preserves shall be named after:
a)Geographical features of broad, general significance to the preserve;
b)Historical persons, cultural names, uses, or events broadly associated
with the locale.
2.Preserves shall not be named after any individuals other than historical persons
as noted above.
B.Preserve Areas, Trails, Site Improvements, Historic Sites and Unnamed Natural Features
This designation refers to specific locations, land formations, trails, natural and physical
features, staging areas and other site improvements, and areas of significance within open
space preserves. Recognition of significant land gifts, including "bargain" purchases, will be
negotiated at the time of the gift or bargain purchase.
1.Preserve areas, trails, site improvements including benches and bridges, historic
sites and previously unnamed natural features shall ordinarily be named after:
a)Geographical, botanical or zoological identification;
Attachment 2
Board Policy 5.01 Page 2 of 4
b) Historical persons, uses, or events associated with the site, or persons
and organizations listed in Section III: “Special Recognition”.
2. Preserve areas, trails, site improvements, historic sites and unnamed natural
features may in rare instances be named after a living individual who has made an outstanding
contribution to the District, subject to approval by the Board of Directors.
II. GIFT RECOGNITION
The purpose of the gift recognition policy is to provide an opportunity for the District to
recognize and commend individuals or groups that have made significant contributions of cash,
equipment, materials, goods or professional services toward the enhancement of the District,
its programs, and its facilities.
A. Unsolicited Cash Gifts:
Up to $25 Postcard of thanks
$26 to $499 Letter signed by General Manager
$500 to $1,999 Letter signed by President of the Board
$2,000 to $4,999 Letter signed by President of the Board and District gift
item (note cards, etc.)
$5,000 to $9,999 Letter signed by President of the Board and framed
photograph of favorite District preserve
$10,000 or more Letter signed by President of the Board and Resolution and
framed photograph of District preserve and mention in a
District publication*
*These items will be provided only if desired by the donor.
III. SPECIAL RECOGNITION
The Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) shall be the committee
designated to discuss all requests that meet the criteria of the policy for special recognition,
made by members of the Board of Directors or by members of the public, including bench
memorials and the naming of bridges, and after deliberation shall decide which requests will be
referred to the full Board for a vote.
The District places benches in its preserves for three distinct purposes:
A. District Rest Benches
These benches provide constituents with a place to rest. District staff places these benches
without involving a District committee or the full Board. Regular benches must be either a
backed or a backless standard bench as described in Section V below.
B. Constituent Memorial Benches
Attachment 2
Board Policy 5.01 Page 3 of 4
These are benches which have been requested by constituents in order to honor a member of
the public and are funded by the requestors who must pay $5,000 for the lifetime cost of the
bench. LFPAC discusses requests for these benches and decides which requests will be referred
to the full Board for a vote. Requests must be in reference to a deceased significant supporter
or a volunteer, as defined in the following sections.
a) Constituent memorial benches shall only be placed in locations that have
been pre-determined by the District and approved by the Use and Management committee and
by the full Board of Directors.
b) If a request for special recognition is approved by the Board of Directors,
the requestor(s) shall pay for the cost of constructing, installing and maintaining a memorial
bench by contributing $5,000 to a Memorial Bench Fund to cover the lifetime cost of the bench.
The District will put this fund into an interest-bearing account which will be used solely for
memorial bench construction, installation, repair, and maintenance.
c) Bench plaques will be 2 x 6 inches in size.
d) Benches must be one of the two District standard bench designs.
C. District Memorial Benches
These are benches which are installed by the District in response to requests by members of
the Board of Directors to honor deceased "Founders," "Significant Supporters", and
“Volunteers”.
a) LFPAC can initiate a bench request and refer a decision to the full Board
or individual Board members can initiate a bench request which will be referred to LFPAC for
discussion before it is referred to the full Board for a final decision. Honorees must be
deceased "Founders", "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers” (per policy Section III D
below).
b) For these benches there are no design specification limits or limits on
their location. The District will pay for the lifetime cost of the bench.
D. Deceased Founders, Significant Supporters, and Volunteers
"Founders", "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers” are eligible for special recognition,
including memorials.
"Founders" shall be defined as an individual or group of individuals who participated in the
formation of the District, or were significant supporters of the formation of the District.
Attachment 2
Board Policy 5.01 Page 4 of 4
"Significant Supporters" shall be defined as individuals or group of individuals who have shown
conspicuous or noteworthy support for the District through extraordinary contributions of time
and effort to the advancement of the goals, philosophy and mission of the District.
“Volunteers” shall be defined as individuals or groups of individuals who donated their time to
the District by working for the District’s docent or volunteer program.
IV. RECOGNITION OF HISTORIC SITES
A. A recognition monument, normally in plaque form, may be considered by the
Board if it is in relation to a specific existing building or other remaining structure of significant
historic value. In such cases, the plaque will be affixed or in close proximity to the structure
itself. If there is no structure, then recognition may he considered for inclusion on District
informational materials or trail signage. Such a site, in the absence of a building or structure,
will ordinarily not be physically marked except as determined by the Board on a case-by-case
basis as part of the Use and Management planning process for the corresponding open space
preserve.
Any Board-approved memorial names shall be included in site brochures, maps, or other
informational materials.
V. STANDARD BENCH DESIGN SPECIFICATION
A. District Rest Benches and Constituent Memorial benches, described in III(A) and
(B) above, are limited to either of the two following standard bench designs:
Backed bench:
Dumor - Bench 88, recycled plastic slates (color: CEDAR), steel leg supports
(color: BLACK, IMBEDDED)
6’ or 8’ lengths
Backless bench:
Dumor - Bench 103, recycled plastic slates (color: CEDAR), steel leg supports
(color: BLACK, IMBEDDED)
103-60PL 6' long, 3 supports
103-80PL 8' long, 3 supports
B. LFPAC can at any point bring designs to the Board that differ from the District’s
standard bench designs.
Attachment 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
LEGISLATIVE, FUNDING, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Government Code
section 54953(e) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Resolution 21 -33. All Board
members and staff participated via teleconference.
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
DRAFT MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cyr called the meeting of the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to order
at 2:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Jed Cyr and Larry Hassett
Members absent: Karen Holman
Staff present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna
Chan, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to
the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Planning Manager Jane Mark,
Planner I Ari Nuri
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced this meeting is being held in accordance with
Government Code section 54953(e) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Resolution
21-33, allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct
a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment.
The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this
meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting
agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District
website. Ms. Woodworth described the process and protocols for the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Woodworth read the submitted comment into the record.
Edward Noskowski provided comments in support of allowing e-bikes on trails in District
preserves.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Attachment 3
LFPAC Page 2
January 18, 2022
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. Approve the December 14, 2021 Legislative, Funding, & Public Affairs Committee
meeting minutes.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to approve the
December 14, 2021 Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs committee meeting minutes.
Public comment opened at 2:06 p.m.
Ms. Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted.
Public comment closed at 2:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0
2. Proposed Trail Name for Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Loop Trail
(R-22-08)
Planner I Arianna Nuri provided the staff presentation describing the location of the loop trail in
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and the policy and process for selecting a trail name. Staff
recommends the name Grasshopper Loop trail, and Ms. Nuri reported the proposed name helps
promote the various ecosystems preserves visitors will visit along the trail and reported the
grasshopper sparrow lives in the grasslands at the preserve. Alternative trail names include
Meadowlark Loop and Lasso Loop.
Director Holman expressed concern members of the public may not understand the dual meaning
of grasshopper and suggested naming it the Grasshopper Sparrow Loop Trail. Alternatively, she
would support the Meadowlark Loop Trail.
Director Hassett spoke in support of the name Grasshopper Loop Trail.
Chair Cyr suggested providing information regarding the meaning of the trail name to visitors
and spoke in support of numbering trail junctions.
General Manager Ana Ruiz provided additional information regarding the trail numbering
process at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and reported this trail would be
incorporated.
Public comment opened at 2:19 p.m.
Ms. Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted for this item.
Public comment closed at 2:19 p.m.
Attachment 3
LFPAC Page 3
January 18, 2022
Ms. Nuri reported the size of the signs for the trail may make it difficult to include the longer
trail name.
Director Holman suggested further educating the public to highlight the work the District does to
protect the grasshopped sparrow, which is a special species of concern.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to Forward a
recommendation to the full Board of Directors for their review and consideration of the proposed
trail name “Grasshopper Loop Trail” for the former Sears Ranch Road loop trail located in lower
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cyr adjourned the meeting of the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee at
2:25 p.m.
____________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
Attachment 3
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-40
Meeting 22-10
March 23, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract for the Hawthorns Historic Complex Structural Assessment
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter contract with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.,
of Emeryville, California, for a base amount of $88,060.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $13,209 to be expended only if necessary to cover
unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $101,269.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) requires a qualified consulting team to
provide structural assessment services for the Hawthorns Historic Complex Structural
Assessment Project (Project) located within the Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space
Preserve (Hawthorns Area). A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on January 31, 2022, and
two proposals were received. After careful evaluation, the General Manager recommends
awarding a contract to Wiss, Janney and Elstner Associates, Inc., (WJE) for a base amount of
$88,060, and authorizing a 15% contingency in the amount of $13,209. The scope of work
includes identifying regulatory requirements (including historic resource requirements and
exemptions) for structure stabilization; analyzing opportunities and constraints for rehabilitation,
stabilization, or repair; and providing options with high-level cost estimates. The Project
findings will inform the exploration of possible new partnership to rehabilitate areas of the
historic complex. Separately, the District is embarking on a multiyear process to develop
the Hawthorns Area Plan, which will be a Comprehensive Use and Management
Plan to guide resource and land management activities and the introduction of ecologically
sensitive public access on the Hawthorns property. This Structural Assessment Project is a
concurrent but separate project from the Area Plan.
BACKGROUND
The 79-acre Hawthorns Area is located southeast of the Alpine Road / Portola
Road intersection in the Town of Portola Valley (Town). This property was gifted to the District
in 2011 and is currently closed to the public in accordance with the Preliminary Use and
Management Plan (R-06-53). Under a separate project, the District recently initiated a
comprehensive planning process to prepare a Hawthorns Area Plan that will guide resource and
land management activities and the introduction of ecologically sensitive public access for the
larger property. Please refer to the project website for more information on this separate effort.
R-22-40 Page 2
The Hawthorns Area was once the site of a year-round family residence, summer retreat, and
small-scale agricultural operation. In 2013, the District retained Knapp Architects to prepare a
Historic Resource Study for the Hawthorns Area, which concluded that the property is eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district because it retains
landscape features and structures that reflect the social, agricultural, and architectural history of
San Francisco Peninsula estate property in the late 19th century. Resources determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places are automatically eligible for the California Register
of Historical Resources. Furthermore, the Historic Element of the Town’s General Plan identifies
two historic resources at the property: (1) the ‘Allen-Woods House and grounds’, and (2)
‘Vegetation at Allen-Woods House’
The Hawthorns Area is subject to a conservation easement granted in 2005 by the Woods Family
Trust to the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). The conservation easement allows low-
intensity recreational uses and related development that aligns with low-intensity improvements
typically offered on other District Preserves, such as unpaved trails, split rail fences, parking
areas, and directional signage. The conservation easement also allows the removal, repair or
replacement of existing buildings or improvements. Other forms of development and uses are
generally restricted by the conservation easement.
Historic District Components
Numerous buildings, structures, and features contribute to the property’s physical character.
These components are centralized in the eastern portion of the property near Los Trancos Creek
(informally called the Hawthorns Historic Complex), and depicted in Attachment 1, List of
Structures Included in the Proposed Assessment, Photos and Descriptions. Four (4) primary
buildings that contribute to the historic district include the following:
· Hawthorns House
· Garage
· Lower Barn
· Cottage
The Historic Complex also contains several ancillary outbuildings that are difficult to both date
and understand how they were used historically, based on the available documentation. These
structures (listed below) contribute, but are of secondary importance, to the historic district.
· Upper Barn
· Shetland Shed
· Dog Sheds
· Carriage Shed
· Pump House
· Coachman’s Quarters
· Raccoon Sheds
· Horse Sheds
· Silo
Landscape features that contribute to the historic district include the following:
· The natural topography and the manner in which built features have been added to the
site with a minimal amount of topographic modifications
· Olive grove
· Internal system of dirt, one-lane roads
· Field stone edging, low retaining walls, and a terraced area with a brick oven located
north of the Hawthorns House
R-22-40 Page 3
The spatial organization of the (1) olive grove and (2) the cluster of the three main residential
buildings (the Hawthorns House, Cottage, and Garage), and (3) the agricultural area with the
Lower Barn and open field in the southern portion of the property also contribute to the historic
district.
A newer residence and asphalt driveway constructed in the mid-1950s and currently used as a
District residence, while located within the Hawthorns Area, do not contribute to the historic
district.
The main goal of the Hawthorns Historic Complex Structural Assessment Project is to provide
reliable technical information on the structural integrity, extent of repairs, costs, and other key
factors to inform feasible and cost-effective use and management options for the structures that
align with the District’s mission and the requirements of the underlying conservation easement.
The outcomes of this work will be folded into the larger Hawthorns Area Plan as appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Conditions Assessment
In 2013, Knapp Architects completed the Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment – Historic
Resources Study and Structures Conditions Assessment to identify high-level opportunities and
constraints for rehabilitation, development, and re-use of the site. Knapp Architects was engaged
by the District again in 2021 to determine which ancillary structures retain sufficient integrity
and contribute to the historic district (Attachment 2. Memorandum – Historic Consultation,
Knapp Architects, December 2021).
The purpose of this Project is to build upon Knapp Architects’ prior studies and conduct a
structural assessment of the Hawthorns Historic Complex buildings that evaluates the structural
integrity of each building in its present-day condition. A list of structures to be assessed is
provided in Attachment 1. Based on field observations and coordination with Knapp Architects,
several ancillary structures were deemed severely dilapidated or completely collapsed; these
structures are omitted from the proposed structural assessment.1
This Project differs from previous historic assessment work already completed by Knapp
Architects in that the proposed structural assessment would evaluate structural integrity and
level of repairs necessary to retain the structure. Recommendations for stabilization,
rehabilitation and/or reuse would reflect the professional observations by structural engineers
and historic architects who are experienced in assessing historic structures.
The contract scope of work includes the preparation of an assessment memorandum that
identifies short-term and long-term recommendations with high-level cost estimates that meet the
following proposed project criteria:
· Ensures public and worker safety within the historic complex area
· Avoids future collapse and deterioration
1 Ancillary structures omitted from this structural assessment include the Shetland Shed, Dog Sheds, Carriage Shed,
Pump House, and Coachman’s Quarters. These structures are severely deteriorated or collapsed; in their current
state, the remaining elements of these structures are a scattered array of materials with no sense of their original
architectural configuration or use.
R-22-40 Page 4
· Minimizes future maintenance requirements
· Evaluates the feasibility and cost-effectiveness for potential active use (interior use)
and/or passive use (exterior use/interpretation element)
Under the proposed contract, the Hawthorn Main House would be carefully assessed to evaluate
three potential options: (1) habitable re-use; (2) mothballing/stabilization (no habitation); and (3)
removal with salvaging of suitable materials and identify the repairs/labor necessary for each
with order of magnitude cost estimates.
The contract deliverables are separated by two tasks:
Task 1: Review historical and existing information and site reconnaissance to prepare and submit
a memorandum of the research findings and site visit. The memorandum shall outline regulatory
requirements (including pertinent historic code requirements and exemptions); summarize
existing site conditions, including the present condition of each structure; and identify constraints
that may impact demolition work, construction, or the on-going use of each structure.
Task 2. Prepare a final assessment report that documents the characteristics of the buildings.
The assessment report shall identify the applicable permitting agencies and their requirements
(including additional details regarding applicable historic exemptions and code requirements),
and options to either rehabilitate (for re-use/habitation), stabilize or repair (mothballing/no re-
use), or remove (with salvaging of suitable materials) for each structure with associated cost
estimates. The assessment shall also include an opportunities analysis based on the findings that
identifies potential grant sources and partnership considerations.
Consultant Selection
An RFP was issued on January 31, 2022 on the District’s website and on BidSync/Periscope.
Consulting firms on the structural engineering on-call list, managed by the District’s Engineering
and Construction Department, were also directly notified of the posting. A pre-proposal meeting
and site tour was held on February 8, 2022, with five firms attending. Staff received two (2)
proposals on February 22, 2022.
Consultant Location Proposal Price
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
(WJE)
Emeryville, CA $88,060.00
ZFA Structural Engineers Santa Rosa, CA $113,270.58
Based on a thorough evaluation conducted by District staff, WJE was deemed the most qualified
to conduct the structural assessment project. WJE has prior experience with evaluating similar
historical structures, and demonstrated a deep knowledge of the Project’s background, setting,
deliverables and goals, and submitted a high-quality proposal to perform the scope of work at a
fair and reasonable price. WJE has extensive experience evaluating historic resources and
demonstrates thorough knowledge of State standards and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The team’s collective historic project experience
includes conducting the structural assessment and design for rehabilitating the District’s Deer
Hollow White Barn, seismic stabilization of the Alcatraz Guardhouse in San Francisco, and
R-22-40 Page 5
detailed structural evaluation of the White Wolf Lodge in Yosemite National Park. Two key
members in the WJE team are registered architects with outstanding expertise in historic
preservation and historic structure reports. For these reasons, the General Manager recommends
entering into an agreement with WJE to complete the Project. The General Manager also
recommends a contingency of 15% to the base contract should the need arise to conduct further
studies for one or more of the buildings within the complex.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Hawthorns Historic Complex Structural Assessment is a new project for Fiscal Year 2022-
23 (FY23), however, the project accelerated and will start in the current fiscal year. There are
savings available in the General Fund Operating budget to cover the cost of the recommendation
through the end of the current fiscal year. Funding for future years budgets to complete the work
will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process.
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Award of contract is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The assessment,
feasibility and conceptual designs for the structures will identify and evaluate possible future
actions, which the District has not yet approved, within the meaning of CEQA Section
15262. The assessment and conceptual designs will inform future actions that will be subject to
CEQA, and subsequent environmental review will be conducted at that time. Retention of
professional consultants will not result in a direct physical change to the environment [CEQA
Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2)] and does not constitute Board approval of the proposed project
or related proposed project elements.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to enter into a contract with
WJE for structural assessment services for the Hawthorns Historic Complex. The contract scope
is anticipated to be completed by end of 2022. The results of the assessment and final
recommended options would then be presented first to the Planning and Natural Resource
Committee for their feedback and then forwarded to the full Board of Directors for a decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Structures Included in the Proposed Assessment, Photos and Descriptions
2. Memorandum – Historic Consultation, Knapp Architects, December 2021
Responsible Department Head:
Jason Lin, Engineering and Construction Department Manager
Prepared by:
Ivana Yeung, Capital Project Manager II, Engineering and Construction Department
List of Hawthorns Structures
Main Structures (See Attachment A for more information)
M-1 Hawthorn House – assess for re-use
M-2 Garage
M-3 Cottage
M-4 Lower Barn
Ancillary Structures
A-1 Upper Barn
A-2 Coachman’s Quarters
A-3 Silo
A-4 Raccoon Sheds (2)
A-5 Horse Sheds (4)
Map 1: Hawthorns Area Structures Map
Attachment 1
Description of Main Structures
1. Hawthorn House
Description: 9000 s.f. two-story wood-framed structure with attic and basement, built adjacent to and
inside existing unreinforced stone and concrete grot retaining walls.
Attachment 1
2. Garage
Description: One-story Craftsman wood-framed structure with an attic set on unreinforced concrete
foundations constructed on a gently sloped grade, which falls from west down to the east. Rectangular
plan with two additions: a lean-to on the east side, and an exterior stair and deck on west side.
3. Cottage
Description: 1300 s.f. vernacular one-story wood-framed structure with attic and crawl space; rectangular
building plan with exterior stair at main east entry.
Attachment 1
4. Lower Barn
Description: 4,400 s.f. one-story wood-framed vernacular structure with high interior space and interior
concrete slab-on-grade.
Attachment 1
Description of Ancillary Structures
1. Upper Barn
Description: Rectangular plan with inset porch, stalls and shed; corrugated steel roof; vertical board &
batten wall & door finish; hopper shutters at window openings; horizontal board siding at stalls; wood
frame on grade (roof 1x6 sheathing on 2x4 purlins, 4x4 posts); dirt floors.
Location: North end of the site on HSC North Driveway in close proximity to Hawthorn House; east of
north end of olive grove.
Attachment 1
2. Coachman’s Quarters
Description: Rectangular plan; corrugated steel roof; board & batten wall finish; wood frame on grade
(roof exposed, 6x6 posts & 2x6 wall); wood tongue-and-groove.
Location: East side of Barn Road, south of the Pump House, across from Lower Barn along sloping bank
of north-south creek to the east
Attachment 1
3. Silo
Description: Storage cylindrical about 30 feet high and 15 feet in diameter. Circular in plan, clad in
vertical concrete panels with metal rods wrapped horizontally at intervals along the height; ladder
enclosed by a cylindrical metal attachment on the exterior; roof is sheet metal with a conical raised cap
for ventilation.
Location: East of the Raccoon Sheds
Attachment 1
4. Raccoon Sheds (2)
Description: Rectangular plan; corrugated steel roof; Shed 1 – board & batten short wall finish and
horizontal boards long side; wood frame on grade (roof 1x8 skip sheathing, 4x4 posts, 2x4 plates); dirt
floors; Shed 2 – board & batten south wall finish; wood frame on grade (roof 1x4 skip sheathing on 2x4
rafters, 4x4 posts); dirt floors
Location: South of the Lower Barn; visible within field west of Barn Road
Attachment 1
5. Horse Sheds (4)
Description: Series of four shelters north of a large field and loop road. Square plan, open three sides;
corrugated steel roof; horizontal board siding at inside face of rear wall framing; wood framing (roof 2x4
rafters, 4x6 posts); rough concrete floors; central wooden trough
Location: End of Barn Road where it loops within a field south of the Lower Barn and Coachman’s
Quarters
Attachment 1
Memorandum
Date 10 December 2021
Project Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
Portola Valley, California
To Alex Casbara, Planner III
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District)
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
From Ruchira Nageswaran
Topic Historical Consultations - Olive Groves and Hawthorn Trees; Secondary
Ancillary Structures
Via Email
Purpose of this Memorandum
In 2021, the District began a multi-year project to explore the feasibility of introducing
ecologically sensitive public access to the Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
(Hawthorns Area) in the Town of Portola Valley, California. The purpose of this Memorandum is
to evaluate the current condition of the olive groves, hawthorn trees, and secondary ancillary
structures on the property to inform the District’s planning process regarding future public
access. Specifically, this Memorandum addresses the following:
Delineate boundaries for portions of the olive grove considered to be historic;
Identify treatment options for subsequent generations of fugitive/volunteer olive trees;
Identify and locate the hawthorns shrubs/trees that contribute to the property’s historic
significance;
Assess the conditions of ancillary structures to determine if they retain integrity to contribute to
the historic district.
Refer to the attached site plan and aerials for the layout of the site and structures; historical
areas of olive groves and hawthorn trees; and other trees along the original driveway.
Historical Status
The Hawthorns Structures Conditions Assessment – Historic Resource Study compiled by
Knapp Architects in December 2013 found that the approximately 79-acre Hawthorns Area
appears eligible to the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district under Criterion A
(broad patterns of history) at the local level. The property was developed by the Allen family
from 1886 and was bought by the Woods family in 1912 and retained until District acquisition in
2011. The property is significant as a “gentleman’s farm” as part of the early development of
the Peninsula in the late 19th and early 20th century. Its period of significance runs from its
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
2
original development by the Allen family in 1886 to 1953, when the property was subdivided by
Frances Newhall Woods with a portion given to Fred Woods to construct a residence in the
early 1950s, which was a mixture of both Ranch and Monterey Revival styles, different from
those of the Historic Complex.
The property consists of two sectors which are divided by a north-south ridgeline: the Los
Trancos Road Precinct with the historic complex of buildings on the east side of the ridge, and
the Alpine Road Precinct with the later 1950s residence on the west side of the ridge.
Olive Groves
The Los Trancos Road Precinct contains an extensive olive grove between the property's
northern and southern boundaries on the eastern side of the ridgeline. The internal road that
runs over the ridge between the Historic Complex and the original Historic Entrance Driveway
from Alpine Road divides the Los Trancos Road Precinct olive grove into two sections; the
section north of the road is smaller and covers approximately three-quarters of an acre; the
section south of the road covers approximately eight and a half acres. The trees are planted in
rows spaced about 20 feet apart.
According to a December 25, 1886 San Mateo County Times-Gazette article cited in the 2013
HRS, up to 1000 olive trees may have been planted. The 2013 HRS notes this matches a rough
count of trees on a 1953 aerial viewed in Google Earth within the Los Trancos Road Precinct
olive grove. As noted in the 2013 HRS and in their current state, these olive trees have not
been pruned or tended for many years with sucker branches growing from the base of the trees,
moss on trunks and limbs, and the encroachment of trees and brush within the edges of the
grove (2013 HRS, p. 63-64).
The Alpine Road Precinct contains a smaller olive grove in the southwestern corner of the
property that was planted at an early date. This grove is visible in a 1943 aerial photograph
referenced in the 2013 HRS. The olive trees were planted in rows spaced about 20 feet apart
within an area of approximately two and a half acres but the grove has not been maintained. As
indicated in the 2013 HRS, the area is overgrown with oaks and brush to the extent that the
rows of olive trees are no longer apparent within the expanse of wooded area along the western
edge of the property (2013 HRS, p. 71).
The olive grove within the Los Trancos Road Precinct retains integrity as a character-defining
feature of the historic district with distinct rows visible despite the trees being overgrown. The
condition and integrity of the olive grove at the southwest corner of the property in the Alpine
Road Precinct has deteriorated so that it no longer contributes to the significance of the
property and is no longer a character-defining feature (2013 HRS, p. 75-76).
Management Considerations
In order to manage the olive groves, the removal of fugitive and volunteer trees within and
outside the Los Trancos Road Precinct and the Alpine Road Precinct groves would be
acceptable. For general management and to minimize fire risk, the following is recommended
for mature olive trees within each of the groves.
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
3
Removal of mature olive trees may occur at the eastern grove (Los Trancos Precinct) retaining
an outline of original trees composed of multiple rows (three trees in depth) to maintain the
historical appearance of the grove on both sides of the internal road and along the western
edge of the Historic Complex. Beyond the visual continuity of retained rows, the trees to the
interior of the grove could be removed or thinned as they become less visible from the road and
the Historic Complex.
Since the southwestern grove (Alpine Road Precinct) no longer retains integrity and does not
contribute to the significance of the property, the removal of mature olive trees would be
acceptable within this grove.
District staff noted that, even with pruning, the existing groves would be difficult to return to a
productive orchard. However, if a partner were found to manage an orchard at either the Los
Trancos Road Precinct or Alpine Road Precinct groves, new trees could be planted within the
footprint of the old groves.
Hawthorn Trees and Shrubs
The Hawthorns property was named for the small ornamental tree, of the Crataegus genus,
that Judge Allen planted along Alpine Road and at the original entry at the Historic Entrance
Driveway soon after he acquired the property. The planting, originally maintained as a tall,
pruned hedge (about 12-15' high), was known to have pink and white blossoms in the
springtime. The hedge was removed when Alpine Road was widened in 1952 (2013 HRS, p.
71). Google Earth historical aerials shows the dark line of the hedge along Alpine Road in 1948,
which disappears in the 1953 aerial.
While the full hedge along Alpine Road is no longer extant, there are individual examples of
hawthorns that have naturalized or self-seeded along Alpine Road at the southwestern edge of
the property; and scattered in the adjacent field and along the Historic Complex Driveway.
Since the original hedge is no longer extant, the fugitive and volunteer hawthorns plants would
not contribute to the historical significance. As such, the hawthorns trees may be managed by
the District as needed, including removal, without impacting the property’s historic significance.
Historic Entrance Driveway Trees
Google Earth historical aerials from 1948 and 1953 show trees planted evenly along each side
of the Historic Entrance Driveway from Alpine Road to the ridgeline. The 2013 HRS noted the
roadbed is no longer extant and formalized vegetation along its edges are not readily apparent
(2013 HRS, p. 76). The thickening of trees is evidenced on the 1991 and 2020 aerials. With
heavy vegetation, it was not possible to walk within the driveway during the site visit on
10/15/2021. District staff noted that the driveway’s location was likely the natural drainage for
the surrounding hills and may have experienced sustained flooding or erosion. Over time, with
lack of management, the driveway became a wooded area. At Alpine Road, where brush has
been cleared, the gate at the original entry is flanked by oak trees. In addition, one row of oak
trees extends from Alpine Road to the now overgrown area that was the driveway. This pattern
of oak trees may continue into the wooded area but is no longer readily discernible.
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
4
In terms of management, it is recommended to retain any aligned oak trees that recall the
original driveway route and contribute to the overall historical character of the property.
Trees at Historic Entrance Driveway – Above, the view looking northwest at the original
entry at the gate flanked by oak trees and line of trees extending along one side (left).
Below, the view looking southeast from the original entry with a line of trees to the right
along one side extending to the woods where the driveway existed.
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
1948
Partial aerial indicates the hawthorn
trees form a hedge along Alpine
Road. Trees also formalize the
Historic Entrance Driveway from
Alpine Road. The north end of the
eastern olive grove is partially
visible to the right of the driveway.
Legend
1000 ft
N
➤➤
N
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Image NASA
Image NASA
Image NASA
Attachment 2
1953
Olive groves are visible at the
southwest corner of the property and
along the eastern slope, west of the
Historic Complex. The hawthorn
hedge along Alpine Road is missing
but trees line the Historic Entrance
Driveway.
Legend
1000 ft
N
➤➤
N
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Attachment 2
1991
The olive groves at the southwest
corner and the eastern slope next to
the Historic Complex and the trees
along the Historic Entrance
Driveway are losing definition as
they grow unmaintained.
Legend
1000 ft
N
➤➤
N
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Image U.S. Geological Survey
Attachment 2
2021
The olive groves at the southwest
corner and the eastern slope next to
the Historic Complex have matured
unmaintained. Similarly, the trees
along the Historic Entrance Driveway
are overgrown although they still
define the original route.
Legend
1000 ft
N
➤➤
N
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
5
Ancillary Structures
The primary structures of the Hawthorns Historic District are the Hawthorn House, Garage,
Lower Barn, and Cottage. The secondary structures are the Upper Barn, Shetland Shed, Dog
Sheds, Carriage Shed, Pump House, Coachman’s Quarters, Raccoon Sheds, Horse Sheds,
and Silo. The construction dates and specific histories of the outbuildings are undocumented.
The following pages summarize the outbuilding description, location, overall architectural
condition, and include a statement of individual integrity based on level of intactness and
condition.
Condition
The ancillary buildings are in various states of disrepair from dilapidated finishes to total
collapse. Since the site has been vacant for many years, architectural conditions ratings
assume a base level of deterioration due to their long abandoned state not comparable to
ratings for buildings in active use. Base level deterioration includes the poor condition of roofing
materials, loose and peeling paint exposed wood exhibiting dry rot, loose and dilapidated siding,
and poor drainage at the base of the building due to overgrowth and poor grading. Physical
conditions ratings are described in general as follows:
•Excellent – Intact without deterioration
•Good – Intact with minor repairable deterioration
•Fair – Deteriorated with portions that require replacement
•Poor – Severely deteriorated or missing requiring replacement and reconstruction Structural
assessment of the outbuildings has not been performed but would be necessary to
understand the stability of the intact ancillary buildings for safety and reuse.
Integrity
When a property is significant under criteria of the California Register, the property’s integrity is
assessed to verify that it retains the physical characteristics which convey its historic
significance. The seven aspects of integrity include location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. The National Register Bulletin “How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation” provides guidance on integrity for historic districts:
“For a district to retain integrity as a whole, the majority of the components that make up
the district's historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually
undistinguished. In addition, the relationships among the district's components must be
substantially unchanged since the period of significance.” (p. 46)
The 2013 HRS notes the following in regard to the outbuildings:
“There are a number of other ancillary outbuildings on the site that are both difficult to date
and to understand how they were used historically. These components of the site should
be considered contributing, but of secondary importance to the historic district.” (p. 107)
“While the Hawthorns property has been changed and been altered over time, and while
some of the contributing resources are in poor condition, overall the historic district retains
a great deal of integrity and a strong sense of time and place. It conveys its significance as
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
6
a representative example of a “gentleman’s farm” or estate property as developed in the
late 19th and early 20th century. While many of the outbuildings on the site are in poor
condition, some even in serious state of decay, they may provide additional information
about the development and use of the property.” (p. 108)
The Hawthorns Historic District is significant under Criterion A (broad patterns of history) at the
local level as a “gentleman’s farm” developed from 1886 to 1953. Of the various ancillary
buildings, the Upper Barn, Raccoon Sheds, Silo, and Horse Sheds, range in condition from
good to poor, but are essentially intact and retain integrity. The Shetland Sheds, Dog Sheds,
Carriage Shed, Pump House, and Coachman’s Quarters are in poor condition and collapsed. In
their current state, the remaining portions are a scattered array of construction materials with no
sense of their original architectural configuration or use. As such, these particular ancillary
buildings no longer retain integrity to contribute to the property’s historic significance.
Even if these secondary structures with no remaining integrity were removed, the Historic
District would retain the seven aspects of integrity to maintain character to convey its
significance through the primary structures, augmented by the remaining secondary contributing
structures. If these secondary structures are removed, their location should be documented on
a map; their physical footprint outlined at the site; and a sign added at the site with available
information, if any, (such as historical information and photographs of their state before
collapse) to facilitate historical interpretation as elements of the overall property.
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
7
Upper Barn
Description Rectangular plan with inset porch, stalls and shed; corrugated steel roof;
vertical board & batten wall & door finish; hopper shutters at window
openings; horizontal board siding at stalls; wood frame on grade (roof 1x6
sheathing on 2x4 purlins, 4x4 posts); dirt floors
Location North end of the site on HSC North Driveway in close proximity to
Hawthorn House; east of north end of olive grove; visible from Historic
Complex
Condition Intact; Fair condition
Integrity Retains integrity
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
8
Shetland Shed Appears to be shade device and may relate to Upper Barn with stalls
Description Rectangular plan, open on three sides; corrugated steel roof; rear south
wall with vertical board & batten finish; wood frame on grade (roof 4x4s
sistered to 2x4s, 1x4 posts, 2x6 wall); dirt floors
Location West of the Cottage; visible on drive from HSC to Alpine Road in between
north and south olive groves across from Upper Barn
Condition Collapsed; Poor condition
Integrity Does not retain integrity
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
9
Dog Sheds (2) Appears to be shelter enclosure
Description Rectangular plan; corrugated steel roof; Shed 1 - 1x6 horizontal board
finish; wood frame on grade (roof 4x4, 1x8 skip sheathing, 4x6 posts, 2x6
wall); dirt floors; Shed 2 – 1x6 vertical board finish; wood frame on grade
(roof 2x4, 8x8 posts); dirt floors
Location Southeast of Garage; somewhat visible within field west of Barn Road
Condition Collapsed; Poor condition
Integrity Does not retain integrity
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
10
Carriage Shed Appears to have an open shelter at the south and enclosed space at north
with stalls
Description Rectangular plan; corrugated steel roof; 1x12 vertical board finish; vertical
board doors with strap hinges; wood frame on grade (roof 1x6 skip
sheathing on 2x6 rafters, 1x4 posts & sills); 1x12 floors
Location North of the Lower Barn; visible from Barn Road
Condition Collapsed substantially at the north; Poor condition
Integrity Does not retain integrity
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
11
Pump House Adjacent to creek with a concrete pad at the interior
Description Rectangular plan; corrugated steel roof; 1x12 vertical board finish;
vertical board doors with strap hinges; wood frame on grade (roof 1x6
skip sheathing on 2x6 rafters, 1x4 posts & sills); 1x12 floors
Location East side of Barn Road, north of Coachman’s Quarters, across from
Lower Barn along sloping bank of north-south creek to the east
Condition Collapsed; Poor condition
Integrity Does not retain integrity
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
12
Coachman’s
Quarters
Appears to have small living quarters at the north end, central covered
space, and grooming/tack room structure at the south
Description Rectangular plan; corrugated steel roof; board & batten wall finish;
wood frame on grade (roof exposed, 6x6 posts & 2x6 wall); wood
tongue-and-groove
Location East side of Barn Road, south of the Pump House, across from Lower
Barn along sloping bank of north-south creek to the east
Condition Collapsed substantially; Poor condition
Integrity Does not retain integrity
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
13
Raccoon Sheds (2) Appears to be shelter enclosure
Description Rectangular plan; corrugated steel roof; Shed 1 – board & batten short
wall finish and horizontal boards long side; wood frame on grade (roof
1x8 skip sheathing, 4x4 posts, 2x4 plates); dirt floors; Shed 2 – board &
batten south wall finish; wood frame on grade (roof 1x4 skip sheathing
on 2x4 rafters, 4x4 posts); dirt floors
Location South of the Lower Barn; visible within field west of Barn Road
Condition Intact; Fair to poor condition
Integrity Retain integrity
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
14
Horse Sheds (4) Appears to be a series of shelters north of a large field and loop road
Description
Location
Condition
Integrity
Square plan, open three sides; corrugated steel roof; horizontal board
siding at inside face of rear wall framing; wood framing (roof 2x4 rafters,
4x6 posts); rough concrete floors; central wooden trough
Two sheds flank the end of Barn Road where it loops within a field south of
the Lower Barn and Coachman’s Quarters
Shed 1 & 2 Intact, Fair condition, 3 & 4 Partially collapsed, Poor condition
Retains integrity
Attachment 2
Knapp Architects Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
10 December 2021 Olive Groves, Hawthorn Trees, Ancillary Structures
Historical Consultations
15
Silo Storage cylindrical about 30 feet high and 15 feet in diameter,
Description Circular in plan, clad in vertical concrete panels with metal rods wrapped
horizontally at intervals along the height; ladder enclosed by a cylindrical
metal attachment on the exterior; roof is sheet metal with a conical raised
cap for ventilation
Location East of the Raccoon Sheds
Condition Intact; Good to fair condition
Integrity Retains integrity
Attachment 2
From:Jennifer Woodworth
Subject:Questions Re: Hawthorns Historic Complex Structural Assessment
Date:Wednesday, March 23, 2022 4:54:29 PM
Good afternoon all,
Please see the email below from Ana.
Jen
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, CPMC
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
jwoodworth@openspace.org
650.691.1200
_______________________________
Dear Board,
We received inquiry today from a Board member about the WJE team that is proposed to be
awarded the Hawthorns Historic Complex structural assessment contract. Below is information
about the firm, their expertise and prior relevant experience:
A. Experience with historic wood-framed structures similar to Hawthorn Complex:
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates (WJE)’s prior experience in evaluating and rehabilitating historic
wood-framed structures include:
1. Crystal Cove Historic Enclave comprised of 48 wood-framed structures constructed in 1920s-
1930s, stabilized and strengthened in accordance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties
2. White Wolf Lodge, Yosemite, constructed in 1920 – Structural evaluation and rehabilitation
for historic wood-framed lodge and cabins
3. Alcatraz Guardhouse, constructed in 1850
4. Faculty Club, constructed in 1902, Mission revival style
5. White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm
B. Experience with State’s Historic Building Code:
WJE’s experience with the State’s Historic Building Code is extensive from their work with California
State Parks to remain compliant.
1. WJE staff member Alan Dreyfuss is the Chair of the State Historical Building Safety Board and
an available resource https://www.wje.com/expertise/people/detail/alan-dreyfuss
2. Historic Building Code expert Una Gilmartin
https://www.wje.com/expertise/people/detail/una-m-gilmartin
C. WJE has a local office in Emeryville, CA
D. Consultation with Historic Architects. A historical architect was not consulted to
recommend structural engineers/firms for the RFP; however, the District has worked with
WJE in the past (Deer Hollow Farm White Barn and Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Repairs)
and has achieved very good final products. The RFP was open/competitive on BidSync and
the District’s website, and Knapp Architects (whose owner/principal was formerly a principal
with Page and Turnbull for 17 years) was also directly solicited.
Thanks
Ana
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
650.691.1200 (office)
openspace.org
From 50 to Forever: Caring for the land that cares for us – By creating Midpen 50
years ago, our community prioritized clean air and water, healthy habitats for diverse
native plants and animals, ecosystems that are resilient to the effects of our changing
climate, and places for people to connect with nature – that's what Midpen provides in
perpetuity. Celebrate with us all year long >
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-42
Meeting 22-10
March 23, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Contract Amendments for Grassroots Ecology to provide two years of annual vegetation
monitoring and reporting and Jana Sokale Environmental Consulting to provide two years of
adaptive management recommendations and annual regulatory agency reporting, both in support
of the Hendrys Creek Restoration Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve.
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with Grassroots Ecology
for two additional years of annual vegetation monitoring and reporting for the Hendrys Creek
Restoration Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve in the amount of $23,340, for a total
amended contract not-to-exceed $335,340.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with Jana Sokale
Environmental Consulting for two additional years of adaptive management
recommendations and annual regulatory agency reporting for the Hendrys Creek Restoration
Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve in the amount of $17,280, for a total amended
contract not-to-exceed $67,255.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) completed the Hendrys Creek
Restoration Project (Project) in 2018. Valley Water (formally the Santa Clara Valley Water
District) partially funded the Project through their Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood
Protection Project D3 Grants and Partnerships Program. The Project required mitigation for
impacts to vegetation resulting from demolition activities that were necessary to restore natural
ecological function along a sensitive riparian corridor. Two additional years (for a total of five
years) of annual vegetation monitoring and regulatory agency reporting are required to fulfill
permit requirements. Grassroots Ecology and Jana Sokale Environmental Consulting (Sokale
Environmental) have fulfilled these requirements for the District during the first three years.
Contract amendments with Grassroots Ecology and Sokale Environmental are the most effective
way to complete the remaining two years of monitoring and reporting requirements. The General
Manager recommends amending the agreement with Grassroots Ecology in the amount of
$23,340 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $335,340, and Sokale Environmental in the
amount of $17,280 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $67,255. There are sufficient
funds in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) budget to cover the work through June 30. Funding in
future years would be requested as part of the annual budget process.
R-22-42 Page 2
DISCUSSION
Grassroot Ecology Agreement
The Board of Directors (Board) authorized a partnership agreement with Acterra Stewardship
(subsequently renamed Grassroots Ecology) on June 22, 2016 (R-16-80) to provide native plant
restoration and grant administration work associated with the Valley Water grant-funded
Hendrys Creek Stream Channel Restoration Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve.
Contract Amendments approved on February 13, 2019 (R-19-18) for expanded restoration work,
grant administration, and vegetation monitoring, and two subsequent contract term extensions
under the General Manager’s authority, provided for additional native plant restoration, grant
support, and three years of annual vegetation monitoring and reporting.
Sokale Environmental Agreement
The District entered into an agreement in July 2015 with Sokale Environmental under the
General Manager’s authority for consultant support in preparing the Valley Water grant.
Contract amendments were later executed for assistance with grant administration, permitting,
environmental document design and review, Project implementation, and monitoring and
reporting, for a contract total not-to-exceed $49,975.
Project Objectives
The purpose of the Hendrys Creek Restoration Project is to restore the geomorphic function of
Hendrys Creek and its tributaries, as well as enhance the native riparian woodland and adjacent
uplands through the removal of anthropogenic structures, invasive species treatment, installation
of nursery native plants propagated from locally collected native plant materials, and direct
seeding of native grass seed, oak acorns, and California buckeye seed. The Project made
enhancements along ¾ miles of the watershed through the removal of 14 in-stream structures
(bridges, culverts, and blockages) and removal of the road along Hendrys Creek and tributaries.
Onsite mitigation consisted of new riparian and upland plantings installed over two phases in
fall/winter 2018-2019 and fall/winter 2019-2020. Over the two-year period, 1,657 native trees,
shrubs, and perennials, as well as 154 oak acorn and California buckeye seeded basins were
planted in a 0.33-acre area of former roadways and building pads that were regraded and tilled to
de-compact the soil. Of the 1,811 plants installed, 143 were required for mitigation.
The Adaptive Management, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Hendrys Creek
Restoration Project was developed with the assistance of Sokale Environmental to define future
adaptive management actions and outline the post construction monitoring and reporting
activities necessary to comply with permits and grant requirements. The 5-year monitoring
program began in 2019 and is scheduled to be completed in 2023. Monitoring and reporting may
be extended for up to five additional years if vegetation performance criteria are not achieved by
2023. As of the Year 3 mitigation monitoring report submitted to the regulatory agencies in
December 2021, the site is on track to meet the performance criteria by Year 5 in 2023.
The District is managing thirteen mitigation sites that require annual monitoring and reporting to
the regulatory agencies and have insufficient capacity to complete annual monitoring and
reporting for the Hendrys Creek site. Grassroots Ecology completed the first three years of
annual vegetation monitoring work, and Sokale Environmental completed the first three years of
site inspections, adaptive management recommendations and regulatory agency reporting for the
Project. Amendments to the two contracts would ensure that the remaining two years of annual
monitoring and reporting are completed. More specifically, a contract amendment in the amount
R-22-42 Page 3
of $23,240 with Grassroots Ecology would provide annual photo monitoring and qualitative
assessments, vegetation transects surveys, and submittals of vegetation monitoring reports for the
remaining two years of required annual monitoring. A contract amendment in the amount of
$17,280 with Sokale Environmental would provide two years of periodic site inspections,
preparation of adaptive management recommendations and annual regulatory agency reporting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the FY22 budget to cover the cost of the recommendation. Funding
for future year budgets will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan Process.
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
On June 22, 2016, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into a partnership
agreement with Acterra Stewardship (subsequently renamed Grassroots Ecology) to provide
native plant restoration and grant administration work to support the Project (R-16-80).
On February 13, 2019, the Board authorized the General Manager to renew the Grassroots
Ecology agreement to provide additional native plant restoration, grant administration, and
vegetation monitoring (R-19-18, Minutes).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Board adopted a Resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Hendrys Creek Restoration Project in accordance
with CEQA on May 13, 2015 (R-15-71).
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the General Manager will amend the contracts with Grassroots Ecology to provide
two years of annual vegetation monitoring and reporting and Jana Sokale Environmental
Consulting to provide two years of periodic site monitoring/inspections, adaptive management
recommendations and annual regulatory agency reporting.
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department
Prepared by:
Amanda Mills, Resource Specialist II, Natural Resources Department
R-22-43
Meeting No. 22-10
March 23, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Teleconferenced Board Meetings Pursuant to the Brown Act and Assembly Bill 361
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution affirming findings on the continued need for remote teleconferenced public
meetings pursuant to AB 361.
SUMMARY
On October 13, 2021 the Board of Directors (Board) adopted Resolution 21-33, recognizing the
continuing state of emergency in California, and authorizing remote teleconferenced public
meetings of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). This action was taken
pursuant to new legislation modifying the Brown Act to empower local public agencies to
conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, without complying with
traditional Brown Act teleconference regulations during a period of emergency (“AB 361”). The
legislation requires the Board to reconsider the need for remote public meetings every 30 days.
DISCUSSION
On October 13, 2021, the Board of Directors (Board) adopted Resolution 21-33, recognizing the
continuing state of emergency in California, and authorizing remote teleconferenced public
meetings of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). This action was taken
pursuant to new legislation modifying the Brown Act to empower local public agencies to
conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, without complying with
traditional Brown Act teleconference regulations during a period of emergency (“AB 361”). The
legislation requires the Board to reconsider the need for remote public meetings every 30 days.
Pursuant to California Government Code section 54953(e), the General Manager recommends
continuing the option of holding and attending remote/teleconferenced meetings in the near term
in order to protect the health and safety of attendees and District Board and staff due to the
characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Resolution (Attachment 1) makes findings
allowing the District to continue holding teleconferenced meetings for the next 30 days.
While hospitalizations and severe illnesses have decreased in the last month, new COVID-19
variants continue to emerge, including a recent variant with increased transmissibility that may
potentially impact the County’s hospital capacity. Also, despite the removal of state requirements
for social distancing, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) still recommends that
persons who are at a higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19—such as those older than 65,
R-22-43 Page 2
those who have high blood pressure or heart disease, or those with weakened immune systems—
continue to protect themselves and their loved ones by staying at least six feet apart from people
outside their households (refer to the CDPH website). Most recently, on March 1, 2022, the
Santa Clara County Public Health Department and the California Department of Public Health
both issued a strong recommendation for the continued voluntary use of face masks in
combination with other safety precautions when activities occur in shared indoor spaces to
mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission: “Masks are strongly recommended for all persons,
regardless of vaccine status, in indoor public settings and businesses (examples: retail,
restaurants, theaters, family entertainment centers, meetings, state and local government offices
serving the public.”
In February 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Orders sunsetting certain emergency
measures that were no longer necessary to address the COVID pandemic. Nevertheless, to date,
the state of California continues to operate under a proclaimed emergency. Additionally, the
Santa Clara County Public Health Department issued a memo dated September 21, 2021
recommending that public bodies continue to meet remotely, if possible, due to the continued
threat of COVID-19 to the community, the unique characteristics of public governmental
meetings (such as the increased mixing associated with bringing together people from across the
community, the need to enable those who are immunocompromised or unvaccinated to be able to
safely continue to fully participate in public governmental meetings, and the challenges with
fully ascertaining and ensuring compliance with vaccination and other safety recommendations
at such meetings), and the continued increased safety protection that social distancing provides
as one means by which to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
Under AB 361, once the Board adopts a resolution to hold teleconferenced meetings, all of the
following requirements apply under the Brown Act:
1. Notice and agenda posting requirements generally remain the same.
2. No physical location is required for public attendance or public comment at public
meetings. However, the public must be able to access and participate in the meeting
through a call-in or an internet-based service, and instructions for how to participate must
appear in the posted notices or agenda.
3. Teleconferenced meetings must protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties
and the public.
4. If there is any disruption of the call-in or internet-based service, the agency must suspend
the meeting until the problem is fixed.
5. Legislative bodies may allow public comments to be submitted prior to a meeting and must
also allow the public to participate in real time through call-in or internet-based service.
6. If an internet-based service requires registration through a third-party, individuals can be
required to register with the third-party to participate in the meeting.
7. When providing a public comment period, whether after each item or during a general
comment period, a legislative body must allow reasonable time for members of the public
to comment and must also include reasonable time for members to register with a third-
party host, if applicable.
The District’s current remote meeting operations meet these requirements.
R-22-43 Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of continuing teleconferenced meetings is approximately $500 per month for the Zoom
webinar subscription. There are sufficient funds in the FY22 budget for this expense.
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
None.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
The resolution is effective for 30 days. It is yet unclear when the proclaimed state of emergency
will end or when the Santa Clara County Health Department will revise or rescind its
recommendation to continue remote meetings. Therefore, the District is preparing to begin
hybrid public meetings recognizing that some participants may want to continue attending
remotely. Board members who wish to continue attending public meetings remotely after the
state and local guidelines change would work with the District Clerk to ensure that their meeting
location is included in public notices as required by the Brown Act.
Attachments:
1. Resolution affirming findings on the continued need for remote teleconferenced public
meetings of the Board of Directors and Board Committees
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Prepared by:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
Staff contact:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
Resolutions/2022/22-xx_AffirmTeleconferenceMeetings 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 22-__
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AFFIRMING FINDINGS ON THE
CONTINUED NEED FOR REMOTE TELECONFERENCED PUBLIC
MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND BOARD COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“District”) is committed
to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the Board of Directors;
and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 54953(e) empowers local legislative
bodies to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions, including that the
Board of Directors make specified findings every 30 days; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California’s March 4, 2020 Proclamation of a
State of Emergency remains in effect as of the date of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued a
Recommendation Regarding Continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities,
basing the recommendation on: 1) the continued threat of COVID-19 to the community, 2) the
unique characteristics of public governmental meetings (such as the increased mixing associated
with bringing together people from across the community, the need to enable those who are
immunocompromised or unvaccinated to be able to safely continue to fully participate in public
governmental meetings, and the challenges with fully ascertaining and ensuring compliance with
vaccination and other safety recommendations at such meetings), and 3) the continued increased
safety protection that social distancing provides as one means by which to reduce the risk of
COVID-19 transmission; and
WHEREAS, while hospitalizations and severe illnesses have decreased in the last
month, new COVID-19 variants continue to emerge, including a recent variant with increased
transmissibility that may potentially impact the County’s hospital capacity. Holding in-person
meetings with all members of the legislative body, staff, and the public in attendance in a shared
indoor meeting space could particularly impact persons who are at higher risk of severe illness;
and
WHEREAS, for the reasons set forth above, the District is concerned about the health
and safety of all individuals who attend open and public meetings of the District; and
WHEREAS, the conditions under which Board of Directors initially determined that
there is a need to conduct meetings via teleconferencing as set forth in Resolution 21-33 are
therefore still in existence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Board of Directors has reviewed the need for continuing teleconferenced meetings.
Resolutions/2022/22-xx_AffirmTeleconferenceMeetings 2
ATTACHMENT 1
2. In compliance with California Government Code section 54953(e), the Board makes the
following findings:
a. The state of emergency continues to impact the ability of the District’s legislative
bodies, as well as staff and members of the public, to meet safely in person.
b. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote
social distancing.
3. The Board of Directors authorizes and directs the General Manager and legislative bodies
of the District, including all standing and ad hoc committees of the Board of Directors,
and all advisory bodies created or appointed by the Board of Directors, including the
Bond Oversight Committee, to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and
purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance
with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown
Act.
4. This Resolution is effective upon adoption.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on ____, 2022, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Karen Holman, Secretary
Board of Directors
Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-44
Meeting 22-10
March 23, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing and Adoption of the New Redistricting Ward Boundary Map
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Hold a public hearing to obtain public comment regarding consideration of the preferred
redistricting scenario map.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing the boundaries of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District wards that align with the preferred redistricting scenario map.
SUMMARY
The General Manager recommends that the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(District) Board of Directors (Board) hear public comment regarding consideration of the
preferred redistricting scenario map and adopt a resolution establishing the boundaries of District
wards that align with the preferred redistricting scenario map.
DISCUSSION
The District is required by law to redistrict its seven ward boundaries following each federal
decennial census to ensure voting power and representation is distributed equally, based on
population size. The 2020 Census illustrates that population growth was uneven throughout the
District’s communities over the last ten years and the current ward boundaries should be
reconsidered to account for changes in population distribution. Principles of redistricting
encourage equalizing populations between wards as far as practicable, avoiding minority vote
dilution, ensuring territory is contiguous (not fragmented), compact (not sprawled), and
maintaining cohesive neighborhoods and communities of interest.
The District began the redistricting process on August 11, 2021 when staff provided an overview
of the redistricting process, including relevant laws and statutes, and proposed a draft set of
criteria (R-21-107). On August 25, 2021, the Board adopted a final set of criteria to guide the
redistricting process that incorporates state and federal law as well as District-specific criteria
(R-21-115). Following the release of the 2020 Census data, staff created three draft redistricting
scenario plans and presented them at a public hearing on October 27, 2021 (R-21-146). Based on
Board direction, staff adjusted the Ward 6/7 boundary to improve cohesion of the Kings
Mountain community in two scenarios and posted all three scenarios to the MyDistricting public
comment tool to solicit feedback over a six-week period. Public comments indicated a majority
preference for Scenario A (the road-centric plan), minority preference for Scenario B (the city-
R-22-44 Page 2
centric plan), and opposition against Scenario C (the minimal change plan). On January 26,
2022, the Board reviewed all public feedback received and selected Scenario A as the preferred
scenario to consider for adoption at a future public hearing (R-22-11).
Scenario A
Scenario A equalizes ward populations and has a total plan deviation of 6.63%. Ward 3 is the
largest ward at 112,776 (3.45% above the ideal population) and Ward 5 is the smallest ward at
105,543 (-3.18% below the ideal population). Scenario A avoids minority vote dilution and
comports with the Voting Rights Act. Scenario A provides contiguous, compact ward territory
and improves community cohesion at the neighborhood scale. Scenario A is road-centric and
uses major transportation corridors (throughfares such as freeways, highways, and arterial roads)
to divide wards because roads often help define community/neighborhood identity. By using
common physical landmarks (thoroughfares), this plan is simple and easy-to-interpret. The table
below provides detailed population and race/ethnicity values for Scenario A. Overview and
detailed ward maps are provided as exhibits to the attached resolution (Attachment 1).
Total Population Tabulation Racial and Ethnic Demographics
Ward All
Persons
Target Deviation Diff. White Asian Black or
African
American
Other
race(s)
Hispanic/
Latino
origin
1 109,009 109,010 0.00% -1 44.6% 45.4% 0.6% 9.4% 5.6%
2 109,675 109,010 0.61% 665 49.7% 36.0% 2.0% 12.2% 7.6%
3 112,776 109,010 3.45% 3,766 29.4% 51.1% 1.4% 18.1% 15.7%
4 110,939 109,010 1.77% 1,929 41.8% 38.9% 1.2% 18.0% 14.1%
5 105,543 109,010 -3.18% -3,467 31.8% 27.7% 5.0% 35.6% 31.3%
6 107,559 109,010 -1.33% -1,451 48.7% 12.0% 1.5% 37.8% 36.0%
7 107,571 109,010 -1.32% -1,439 62.4% 16.2% 1.0% 20.5% 16.4%
If adopted, the new ward boundaries will be used for the November 8, 2022 general election.
Staff will update District resources and information post-adoption to reflect the new boundaries.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendation.
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
This project previously came to the Board of Directors at the following public meetings:
• October 10, 2020: District staff provided a memo updating the Board on the consultant
selection process, systematic delays to receiving the 2020 Census data, and background
on the 2010 redistricting process.
• August 11, 2021: District staff and Citygate provided a presentation on the redistricting
process and proposed a set of criteria for Board consideration. The Board reviewed
and provided feedback on the proposed criteria. (R-21-23, minutes)
• August 25, 2021: Board adopted final criteria to guide the redistricting process. (R-21-
115, minutes)
R-22-44 Page 3
• October 27, 2021: District staff presented three draft redistricting scenario maps. The
Board reviewed and provided feedback, directing staff to modify the Ward 6/7 boundary
to unify the Kings Mountain community under one ward and to post final scenarios to the
MyDistricting online public comment tool. (R-21-146, minutes)
• January 26, 2022: Board reviewed adjusted scenarios and selected Scenario A as the
preferred scenario to be brought to a public hearing for a vote on its adoption. (R-22-11,
minutes)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act. Additional notification was
also provided to the District Agenda interested party subscribers, individuals who expressed
interest in the redistricting process, regional newspapers, local newsletters, community
organizations, and homeowner/neighborhood associations located in areas of change. The public
hearing was noticed in the San Jose Post- Record on March 18, 2022.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval by the Board, staff would proceed with establishing District ward boundaries to
align with Scenario A and county assessor parcel boundaries, then submit final maps and
documentation to the election offices of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties.
Alignment with county assessor parcel boundaries is necessary to ensure proper distribution of
voter ballots for future elections and may require very minor adjustments for select individual
parcels where there may be mapping discrepancies between ward lines and parcel lines, which
may primarily occur in rural, low population areas.
Attachments
1. Resolution establishing the boundaries of District wards to align with the preferred
redistricting scenario map
Responsible Department Head:
Casey Hiatt, Information Systems & Technology
Prepared by:
Jamie Hawk, GIS Program Administrator, Information Systems & Technology
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADJUSTING
EXISTING WARD BOUNDARIES BASED ON THE 2020 UNITED STATES
CENSUS
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (“District”) has reviewed population figures provided by the 2020 United States Census for the
District’s seven wards; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that ward boundary adjustments are necessary in order to
achieve equal population, as far as practicable, per ward based on the 2020 United States Census data;
and
WHEREAS, the District ward boundary adjustments are based on the following criteria: 1)
Comply with all applicable laws, including the avoidance of gerrymandering; 2) Ward boundaries should
be substantially equal in population; 3) Ensure that minority voting strength is not diluted and avoid the
fragmentation or over-compaction of minority groups as provided in the Voting Rights Act; 4) Maintain
cohesive neighborhoods and communities of interest and, where possible, keep city representation intact
within a single ward; 5) To the extent possible, ward boundaries shall be created to contain compact,
cohesive, and contiguous territory; 6) Strive to ensure coastside community interests are represented
appropriately; and 7) Unless otherwise required by law, ward boundaries shall be created using 2020
Census geography and population data; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code section 22001, the Board held a duly noticed
public hearing on October 27, 2021 on the proposal to adjust the ward boundaries and a duly noticed
public hearing on March 23, 2022 prior to adoption of the proposed ward boundary adjustments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District as follows:
SECTION ONE. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 22000 and Public Resources Code Section
5534, ward boundaries are hereby adjusted for wards of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
as described schematically in Exhibits A-H attached hereto and as delineated in detail on file with the
District Clerk in the District Administration Office, which documents are incorporated herein by
reference:
Exhibit A: Overview Map
Exhibit B: Ward 1 Map
Exhibit C: Ward 2 Map
Exhibit D: Ward 3 Map
Exhibit E: Ward 4 Map
Exhibit F: Ward 5 Map
Exhibit G: Ward 6 Map
Exhibit H: Ward 7 Map
SECTION TWO. The ward boundaries as established by the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on October 19, 2011, with respect to the wards in Santa
Clara County, Santa Cruz County and San Mateo County by Resolution No. 11-34 are superseded by this
resolution.
Attachment 1
SECTION THREE. Pursuant to Election Code Section 10522, the following statement indicates
in which wards a director is to be elected at the next biennial general election to be held on November 8,
2022 (Ward 1, Ward 2, Ward 5, and Ward 6), and in which wards a director is to be elected on the
succeeding general election to be held on November 5, 2024 (Ward 3, Ward 4, and Ward 7).
SECTION FOUR. Because the new redistricting plan may contain technical anomalies caused
by errors in the 2020 Census line files that do not substantively affect the populations in the director
divisions, the division boundaries, or the intent of this resolution, which anomalies are not revealed until
implementation begins, the General Manager and/or designee are authorized to make technical
emendations to the new redistricting plan that do not substantively affect the populations in the director
divisions, the division boundaries, or the intent of this resolution, and shall advise the Board of any such
emendations that are found to be required in plan implementation by the respective county elections
officials.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _______, 2022, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Karen Holman, Secretary
Board of Directors
Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held
and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Attachment 1
84
84
84
84
280
280
101
1
1
1
35
35
35
92
92
85
85
9
101
82
280
101
237
82
280
17
17
92
35
9
280
101
85
17
880 680
San
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
101
82Page
Mill
A
l
pi
n
e
Shoreline
P
o
rt
o
la
Marsh
Homestead
San
A
n
t
onio
Whip
p
l
e
B a y
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
Will
o
wJeffersonV
a
l
o
t
a
Maude
Reg n a rt
McClellan
Cen
t
r
a
l
Ma
r
y
Bay
El Camino R ea l
El
C
a
m
in
o
R
e
al
Steven s Canyon
Alpine
Bear G ulch
Alpi
n
e
Central
Page Mill
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
San d
H i l l
S
k
y
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
S
k
y
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
San Mateo County
Redwood
City
Union City
Mountain
View
Palo
Alto
Fremont
Cupertino
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
San Mateo
North
Fair
Oaks
Stanford
La Honda
Pescadero
Boulder Creek
Loyola
Ladera
El Granada
Montara
Moss
Beach
Loma Mar
Lexington
Hills
West Menlo
Park
Campbell
Half Moon Bay
San Carlos
Foster City
Hillsborough
Burlingame
East Palo
Alto
Los Altos
Menlo Park
Newark
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Portola
Valley
Woodside
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Monte Sereno
Ward boundaries
Preserve boundary
Sphere of influence
District boundary
County boundary
Coastside protection area
Scenario A
Overview Map
Census 2020 Redistricting
0 2.5 5
Miles±3/2/2022
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Incorporated city/town
Census designated place
Aa
Aa
Wards constructed from 2020 Census block geography.
763,072 persons
Target population per ward: 109,010
Racial demographics
White
Asian
Black
Other race(s)
District
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
335,550
249,445
13,702
164,375
Hispanic/Latino origin
Latino
Not Latino0%50%100%
District
Map legend
35
85
9
280
17
17
35
9
85
17
S
a
r
a
toga C re e k
L o s G a t o s C r e e k
G u a d a l u p e C r e e k
Z a y ante
Creek
B e a r Creek
S
a
n
L
o
r
e
n
z
o
R
i
v
e
r
San
Tomas A q u i n a s C r e e k
Stevens
C
r
e
e
k
P
erma n e nte Creek
Adobe
Creek
P e s c a dero
Creek
BEAR
CREEK
REDWOODS
FELTON
STATION
FOOTHILLS
FREMONT
OLDER
LONG
RIDGE
PICCHETTI
RANCH
SARATOGA GAP
ST.
JOSEPH'S
HILL
RANCHO SAN
ANTONIO
EL SERENO
LOS
TRANCOS
MONTE BELLO
SKYLINE
RIDGE
SIERRA AZUL
Ward 1
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
San
Mateo
County
Home s t e a d R d
Port
o
l
a
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
F
o
ot
h
i
ll
Homestead
Regnart R d
E Homestead Rd
McClellan Rd
Stevens C a n y o n R d
L
a
wrence
Expy
San Jose
Cupertino
Boulder Creek
Lexington
Hills
Campbell
Saratoga
Los GatosMonte Sereno
Preserve boundary
Sphere of influence
District boundary
County boundary
Coastside protection area
Map legend
Ward 1
Detailed Map
Census 2020 Redistricting
0 1.5 3
Miles±3/1/2022
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Incorporated city/town
Census designated place
Aa
Aa
Racial demographics
White
Asian
Black
Other race(s)
Ward 1
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Hispanic/Latino origin
Latino
Not Latino
0%50%100%
Ward 1
109,009 persons
0.00% from target population
84
280
35
35
85
85
101
82
280
101
237
82
280
101
P
e
r
m
anente
C
r
e
e
k
S aratoga
Creek
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
Creek
L
o
s
T
r
a
n
c
o
s
C
r
e
e
k
S a n F
r
a
n
cisquito C r e e k
FOOTHILLS
FREMONT OLDER
LA HONDA
CREEK
LONG
RIDGE
PICCHETTI
RANCH
SARATOGA GAP
STEVENS CREEK
SHORELINE
NATURE
STUDY AREA
THORNEWOOD
WINDY HILL
RANCHO SAN
ANTONIO
COAL
CREEK
LOS
TRANCOS
MONTE BELLORUSSIAN RIDGE
SKYLINE RIDGE
Ward 2
Santa Clara
County
San Mateo
County
PageMill
Rd
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
A
l
p
i
n
e
R
d
P
a
ge Mill
S a nd H ill R d S and H i l l R d
Portol
a
R
d
Ma
r
y
S a n d H illRd
Alpine
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Mau
d
e
Alpine
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
W i l l o w Rd
N
San
Antonio
Rd
W
MaudeAve
E Middlefield
R
d
W Homestead Rd
Regn a rt R d
elCa
mino
Real
elCa
mino
R
e
a
l
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
E Homestead Rd
San
Ant
onioRd
McClellan Rd
CentralExpy
W
MiddlefieldRd
N
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
S
Mary
Ave
A l pineR d
CentralExpy
Steve n s C a n yo n R d
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
F
o
othill
E
x
p
y
A
l
p
i
n
e
R
d
Lawrence
Expy
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Cupertino
Sunnyvale
Stanford
Loyola
Ladera
West
Menlo
Park
Los
Altos
Menlo
Park
Saratoga
Portola
Valley
Woodside
Los Altos Hills
Atherton
Preserve boundary
Sphere of influence
District boundary
County boundary
Coastside protection area
Map legend
Ward 2
Detailed Map
Census 2020 Redistricting
0 1 2
Miles±3/1/2022
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Incorporated city/town
Census designated place
Aa
Aa
Racial demographics
White
Asian
Black
Other race(s)
Ward 2
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Hispanic/Latino origin
Latino
Not Latino
0%50%100%
Ward 2
109,675 persons
+0.61% from target population
85
280
101
82
Stevens
C re ek
S arato g a C r e e k
S
a
n
T
o
m
a
s
A
q
u
i
n
a
s
C
r
e
e
k
Ward 3
Santa Clara
County
Homestead
E M
a
u
d
e
A
v
e
N
Footh
ill
Blvd
Foothill
Exp
y
W
M
a
u
d
e
A
v
e
NMary A v e
W
M
audeAve
E
M
i
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
W Homestead Rd Homest
e
a
d
R
d
el Camino Real
E Homestead Rd
Central Expy
S
M
a
r
y
A
v
e
Lawrence
Expy
Lawrence
Expy
CentralExpy
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Preserve boundary
Sphere of influence
District boundary
County boundary
Coastside protection area
Map legend
Ward 3
Detailed Map
Census 2020 Redistricting
0 0.5 1
Miles±3/1/2022
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Incorporated city/town
Census designated place
Aa
Aa
Racial demographics
White
Asian
Black
Other race(s)
Ward 3
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Hispanic/Latino origin
Latino
Not Latino
0%50%100%
Ward 3
112,776 persons
+3.45% from target population
85
280
82
280
101
P
e
r
m
a
n
ente
Creek
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
A d o b e C r e e k
RANCHO SAN
ANTONIO
Ward 4
Santa Clara
County
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Ma
r
y
Homestead
Mau
d
e
S
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
R
d
SanAntonioRd
W
M
a
u
d
e
A
v
e
E Homestead Rd
e
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
N MaryAve
N
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
N
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
R
d
W
M
audeAve
E
M
i
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
W Homestead Rd
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
W
MiddlefieldRd
S
Mary
Ave
Cen
t
r
a
l
E
x
p
y
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Mountain View
Sunnyvale
Loyola
Los Altos
Preserve boundary
Sphere of influence
District boundary
County boundary
Coastside protection area
Map legend
Ward 4
Detailed Map
Census 2020 Redistricting
0 0.6 1.1
Miles±3/1/2022
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Incorporated city/town
Census designated place
Aa
Aa
Racial demographics
White
Asian
Black
Other race(s)
Ward 4
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Hispanic/Latino origin
Latino
Not Latino
0%50%100%
Ward 4
110,939 persons
+1.77% from target population
84
280
101
82
101
237
880
101
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
Creek
A dobe
Creek
L
o
s
T
r
a
n
c
o
s
C
r
e
ek
S a n F r anc i s q uito
C
reek
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
e
Creek
RAVENSWOOD
STEVENS CREEK
SHORELINE
NATURE
STUDY AREA
Ward 5
Santa Clara
County
San Mateo
County
N
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
M
i
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Ma
r
s
h
R
d
Ma
r
y
S a n d H ill R d
Bay Rd
Mau
d
e
W illowRd
N
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
R
d
Middlefield
Rd
W
MaudeAve
EMiddle
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
elCa
mino
R
e
a
l
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
E
x
p
y
San
Ant
o
nioRd
Centra
l
E
x
p
y
W
MiddlefieldRd
Bay
R
d
FoothillEx
p
y
Alpine
R
d
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
CentralExpy
Mountain
View
Palo Alto
Fremont
Stanford
Ladera
East Palo
Alto
Menlo Park
Newark
Atherton
Preserve boundary
Sphere of influence
District boundary
County boundary
Coastside protection area
Map legend
Ward 5
Detailed Map
Census 2020 Redistricting
0 1 2
Miles±3/1/2022
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Incorporated city/town
Census designated place
Aa
Aa
Racial demographics
White
Asian
Black
Other race(s)
Ward 5
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Hispanic/Latino origin
Latino
Not Latino
0%50%100%
Ward 5
105,543 persons
-3.18% from target population
84
84
84
84
280
280
101
1
1
1
35
35
35
92
92
85
85
9
10182
280
101
237
82
280
17
17
35
9
280
880
San Fra
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
101
BEAR CREEK
REDWOODS
EL CORTE DE
MADERA CREEK
FELTON
STATION
FOOTHILLS
FREMONT OLDER
LA HONDA
CREEK
LONG RIDGE
MIRAMONTES
RIDGE
PICCHETTI
RANCH
PULGAS
RIDGE RAVENSWOOD
SARATOGA
GAP
ST.
JOSEPH'S
HILL
TEAGUE HILL
THORNEWOOD
TUNITAS
CREEK
WINDY HILL
RANCHO
SAN
ANTONIO
PURISIMA
CREEK
REDWOODS
EL SERENO
COAL CREEK LOS
TRANCOS
MONTE
BELLO
RUSSIAN RIDGE
SKYLINE
RIDGE
SIERRA
AZUL
Ward 6
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
San Mateo
County
Page Mill
P
orto
l
aRd
San d H i ll R d
MarshRd
Mau
d
e
Jeff e r s o n
V
a
l
o
t
a
Sa
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Middle
fi
e
l
d
Reg n a rt
Homest e a d R dHomestead
el Camino Real
SanAntonio
Cen tral Expy
Shoreline
Ma
r
y
BayRd
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Ste
vens
C
any o n R d
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
A lpi n e R d
Bear G ulc h Rd
Lawrence
Expy
Redwood City
Mountain
View
Palo
Alto
Fremont
Cupertino
Santa
Clara
Sunnyvale
San Mateo
North
Fair
Oaks
Stanford
Loyola
La Honda
Pescadero
Boulder Creek
Emerald
Lake Hills
El Granada
Montara
Loma Mar
Lexington
Hills
Ladera
Moss Beach
West Menlo
Park
Half Moon Bay
San Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
Hillsborough
East Palo
Alto
Los Altos
Menlo Park
Newark
Saratoga
Portola
Valley
Woodside
Los
Altos
Hills
Atherton
Monte Sereno
Preserve boundary
Sphere of influence
District boundary
County boundary
Coastside protection area
Map legend
Ward 6
Detailed Map
Census 2020 Redistricting
0 3 6
Miles±3/1/2022
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Incorporated city/town
Census designated place
Aa
Aa
Racial demographics
White
Asian
Black
Other race(s)
Ward 6
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Hispanic/Latino origin
Latino
Not Latino
0%50%100%
Ward 6
107,559 persons
-1.33% from target population
84
84
84
84
280
280
101
1
1
35
35
92
92
82
92
280
101
San Francis
c
o
B
a
y
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
EL CORTE DE
MADERA CREEK
FOOTHILLS
LA HONDA
CREEK
MIRAMONTES
RIDGE
PULGAS RIDGE
RAVENSWOOD
TEAGUE HILL
THORNEWOOD
TUNITAS
CREEK
WINDY
HILL
RANCHO SAN
ANTONIO
PURISIMA
CREEK
REDWOODS
COAL CREEK
LOS TRANCOS
MONTE
BELLORUSSIAN
RIDGE SKYLINE
RIDGE
Ward 7
Santa Clara
County
San Mateo
County
P
a
geMillR d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
P
a
ge Mill
P
o
rt
o
l
a
Rd
Marsh Rd
S a n d H illRd
Whip
p
l
e
A
v
e
Alp
i
n
e
WillowRd
Jeffe r s o n A v e
V
a
l
o
ta
R
d
P
o
rt
o
la
R
d
Foothill
E
x
p
y
B e ar G ulchR d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
al
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
BayRd
el
C
a
m
in
o
Real
BearGulc h Rd
A
lpin
e
R
d
S an d H i ll Rd
Redwood
City
Palo
Alto
San Mateo
North Fair
Oaks
Stanford
La Honda
Emerald Lake Hills
El Granada
Montara
Ladera
Moss Beach
West
Menlo
Park
Half
Moon
Bay
San Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
Hillsborough
Burlingame
Millbrae
East Palo
Alto
Menlo Park
Portola Valley
Woodside
Los
Altos
Hills
Atherton
Preserve boundary
Sphere of influence
District boundary
County boundary
Coastside protection area
Map legend
Ward 7
Detailed Map
Census 2020 Redistricting
0 2 4
Miles±3/1/2022
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Incorporated city/town
Census designated place
Aa
Aa
Racial demographics
White
Asian
Black
Other race(s)
Ward 7
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Hispanic/Latino origin
Latino
Not Latino
0%50%100%
Ward 7
107,571 persons
-1.32% from target population
R-22-45
Meeting 22-10
March 23, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 8
AGENDA ITEM
Hawthorns Area Plan – Approval of the Vision and Goals
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Review and approve the Vision and Goals for the Hawthorns Area Plan as recommended by the
Planning and Natural Resources Committee.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) intends to develop a Comprehensive
Use and Management Plan for the Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
(Hawthorns Area). At this March 23, 2022 Board of Directors (Board) meeting, the Board will
consider approving the Hawthorns Area Vision and Goals as reviewed and forwarded by the
Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) at their November 16, 2021 meeting (R-21-
156).
BACKGROUND
The 79-acre Hawthorns Area, which is located within the Town of Portola Valley (Town), was
gifted to the District in 2011 and is currently closed to the public in accordance with the
Preliminary Use and Management Plan (R-06-53). In 2021, the District initiated a multiyear
process to develop the Hawthorns Area Plan, which will be a Comprehensive Use and
Management Plan to guide resource and land management activities and the introduction of
ecologically sensitive public access on the property.
The planning process for the Hawthorns Area begins with the development of vision and goals,
which establish an overarching direction for the future use and management of the property. At
the August 24, 2021 PNR meeting (R-21-112), PNR committee members reviewed and
commented on the draft vision and goals. At a subsequent November 16, 2021 PNR meeting (R-
21-156), the PNR Committee incorporated their final edits to the draft language and
recommended forwarding the vision and goals to the full Board for their consideration. At this
March 23, 2022 Board meeting, staff will present the final vision and goals to the Board for
approval.
Property Overview
The Hawthorns Area is bounded by Alpine Road to the west, Los Trancos Road to the east, and
private property to the north and south. The property is accessible from driveways on Alpine
Road and Los Trancos Road. Improvements to the Hawthorns Area include residential structures,
R-22-45 Page 2
farm buildings, landscaping, and ranch roads. Some structures date back to the late 1800s, when
a prominent San Francisco judge acquired the property and constructed a residence, carriage
house, and several ancillary buildings near Los Trancos Creek. The cluster of buildings and
structures near Los Trancos Creek is informally called the Historic Complex. The property also
includes a modern residence and driveway from Alpine Road constructed in the 1950s.
Property Acquisition
In 2006, the Board accepted the Hawthorns property from the Woods Family Trust as the largest
private land gift received by the District at that time. The Woods Family Trust generously
donated their property to preserve it as public open space in perpetuity. The property officially
transferred to the District in 2011 as the Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve.
The Hawthorns Area is subject to a conservation easement granted in 2005 by the Woods Family
Trust to the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). The conservation easement allows low-
intensity recreational uses and related development that aligns with improvements typically
offered on other District Preserves, such as unpaved trails, split rail fences, parking areas, and
directional signage. Other forms of development and uses are generally restricted by the
conservation easement.
2014 Vision Plan
In 2014, the Board approved 54 priority actions in the Open Space Vision Plan that prioritized
conservation and management efforts throughout the District. The Hawthorns Area is included
under Vision Plan Priority #6: Windy Hill, which established the following actions specific to
the Hawthorns Area:
“Open Hawthorns Area, develop trails connecting to Portola Valley and Palo Alto trails.
Explore partnerships to protect, restore, and interpret historic buildings. Improve habitat
conditions in Los Trancos Creek.”
The public supported this Vision Plan priority in 2014 when it voted for the passage of Measure
AA, a $300M general obligation bond to fund the top 25 Vision Plan Priority Actions. The total
expenditure plan for the Windy Hill Measure AA Portfolio is $12,740,000, of which
approximately $1.7M can be allocated to the Hawthorns Area.
Preliminary Use and Management Plan
At the time of property acquisition, the District prepared a Preliminary Use and Management
Plan (PUMP) to establish land management activities. The Board adopted a PUMP for the
Hawthorns Area in 2006 (R-06-53) and a PUMP amendment in 2012 (R-12-46). Since 2012,
District staff have implemented a number of actions prescribed by the PUMP, including the
following:
• Secured existing structures against trespass and vandalism
• Established an on-site employee presence
• Implemented a plan for wildland fire management and defensible space safety
• Conducted grassland restoration and invasive species management
• Evaluated long-term management options for the Historic Complex
The PUMP included a future action to study the feasibility of providing public access and
connecting to existing trail networks.
R-22-45 Page 3
DISCUSSION
Property Description
Natural Resources and Wildland Fire/Vegetation Management
The Hawthorns Area includes grasslands and oak woodland that transition into mixed evergreen
forests along Los Trancos Creek, which flows year-round and meanders along the eastern edge
of the Hawthorns Area. The Los Trancos Creek corridor supports a diverse community of plants
and wildlife and provides spawning habitat for the threatened Central California Coast steelhead
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Remnants of an olive orchard occupy the hillsides west of Los
Trancos Creek. Wildlife entering and existing the Hawthorns Area must travel across Alpine
Road, Los Trancos Creek Road, or through surrounding neighborhoods to reach nearby open
spaces such as Windy Hill Open Space Preserve, Arastradero Preserve, Palo Alto Foothills Park,
Coal Creek Open Space Preserve, and Los Trancos Open Space Preserve.
Ongoing grassland management at the Hawthorns Area includes mowing of invasive yellow star
thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). The District’s Natural Resources Department is working with
contractors to perform grassland monitoring and inform timed mowing for invasive, non-native
weeds to promote native plant generation. Volunteers also actively remove highly flammable
French broom (Genista monspessulana), especially along roadways.
Cultural Resources
The Hawthorns Area was once the site of a year-round family residence, summer retreat, and
small-scale agricultural operation. In 2013, the District retained Knapp Architects to prepare a
Historic Resource Study for the Hawthorns Area, which concluded that the property is eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district because it retains
landscape features and structures that reflect the social, agricultural, and architectural history of
San Francisco Peninsula estate property in the late 19th century.
Elements of the historic district include farm structures, remnant landscaping, olive groves,
fencing, unimproved roads, and four primary buildings located in a zone known as the Historic
Complex: 1) a large barn, 2) a cottage, 3) the main house, and 4) a carriage house. A newer
residence and asphalt driveway constructed in the mid-1950s and currently used as a District
residence, while located within the Hawthorns Area, do not contribute to the historic district.
An archaeological survey conducted in 2018 determined that the Hawthorns Area contains
sensitive Native American resources. District staff will coordinate with local tribal
representatives to ensure appropriate protections for these resources and to solicit input on other
elements of the Area Plan, including land management actions.
Scenic Resources
The Hawthorns Area landscape is largely comprised of grassland hillsides and scenic ridgetops
that afford panoramic views of Portola Valley, the San Francisco Peninsula, the East Bay hills,
and the Santa Cruz Mountains. Hillsides within the Hawthorns Area are visible from adjacent
Town neighborhoods. Alpine Road, which borders the western property boundary, is a
designated Scenic Corridor. The Town’s 2001 Alpine Scenic Corridor Plan protects the natural
beauty along Alpine Road and provides objectives and actions limiting development that would
visually affect this corridor.
R-22-45 Page 4
Alpine Road
Alpine Road is one of two major arterials through the Town and carries vehicle, bicycle,
equestrian, and pedestrian traffic. According to the Town’s 2003 General Plan Trails and Paths
Element, the following portions of Alpine Road adjacent to the Hawthorns Area are officially
designated as part of the Town’s publicly-accessible trail and path network:
• Bicycle Route: Alpine Road from Los Trancos Road to Saddleback Drive.
• Bicycle Path: On the north side of Alpine Road from Los Trancos Road to Portola Road.
• Equestrian/Hiking Trail: On the south side of Alpine Road from Los Trancos Road to
Portola Road (see Alpine Road Trail, below).
• Multi-Use Corridor: On the south side of Alpine Road from Portola Road to Saddleback
Drive (see Alpine Road Trail, below).
Alpine Road Trail
The Alpine Road Trail is a multi-use trail that travels along the south side of Alpine Road from
Ladera to the Alpine Road / Portola Road intersection. This facility is frequently used by
equestrians, hikers, cyclists, and children traveling throughout the community. Between Los
Trancos Road and Saddleback Drive, the Alpine Road Trail is an unpaved path that meanders
along the northern Hawthorns Area property boundary and is separated from Alpine Road by a
vegetated berm. The Town has requested that the District and Town work together to realign and
widen portions of the Alpine Road Trail adjacent to the Hawthorns Area. This planning process
would incorporate the requested realignment as part of the trail development.
Trail Connectivity
The Town’s Trails and Paths Element of the General Plan envisions a trail and path system
throughout the Town that interconnects with conceptual trails for the Hawthorns Area. Local trail
connection opportunities include the Alpine Road Trail and the Sweet Springs Trail. In addition,
the Hawthorns Area may potentially contribute to regional trail connections with other nearby
public open spaces, including Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, Foothills Park, Coal Mine Ridge
Nature Preserve, and publicly accessible private lands such as the Stanford Dish Area.
Hawthorns Area Plan Process
The following table outlines the proposed planning process for the Hawthorns Area Plan. This
process would engage community members, District Board and staff, and the Town to identify
long-term goals for habitat enhancement, resource management, public access improvements,
environmental education, visitor amenities, and other land management activities. Refer to the
March 1, 2022 PNR report (R-22-29) for additional detail and information on the planning
process and associated public engagement opportunities.
# Phase Title Phase Overview Public Engagement
Opportunities
1 Vision & Goals • Develop vision & goals
• Refine planning process
• Virtual comment card
• Board/PNR meetings
R-22-45 Page 5
# Phase Title Phase Overview Public Engagement
Opportunities
2 Existing Conditions • Survey existing conditions
• Prepare Opportunities &
Constraints Report
• Stakeholder engagement
• Site tours
• Open house
• Virtual comment card
• Board/PNR meetings
3 Programming /
Conceptual Planning
• Identify use & management
objectives and recommendations
• Identify programmatic elements
• Develop Conceptual Plan
Alternative(s)
• Stakeholder engagement
• Workshops
• Public Access working group
• Online surveys
• Pop-up events
• Virtual comment card
• Board/PNR meetings
4
Area Plan /
Environmental
Review
• Prepare Area Plan
• Approve CEQA findings and
Area Plan
• Board/PNR meetings
• Public/agency comment on
CEQA document
5 Implementation • Design development,
permitting, & construction
• TBD (Town permitting
process)
Vision And Goals
The proposed planning process for the Hawthorns Area Plan begins with the development of the
vision and goals, which represent the overarching guidance for use and management actions on
the property. The PNR reviewed draft vision and goals on August 24, 2021 and provided
comments. On November 16, 2021, the PNR reviewed the revised vision and goals, suggested
further refinements, and unanimously recommended forwarding the refined vision and goal
statements (provided below) to the full Board for consideration.
District staff received 69 public comments regarding the Hawthorns Area between April 2021
and March 2022. Comments were received at PNR meetings and via a virtual comment card
hosted on the project webpage. Public input informed the development of the vision and goals by
identifying key topics and themes relevant to the Hawthorns Area.
Hawthorns Area Vision Statement
The Hawthorns Area offers picturesque views of rolling oak grasslands and the Santa Cruz
Mountains, provides important wildlife refuge, and reflects the region’s natural, agricultural,
and social history. The District will protect and manage natural, scenic, cultural, and open
space resources at the Hawthorns Area and provide ecologically sensitive public access
consistent with the District’s mission and the allowable uses outlined in the property’s
conservation easement.
Hawthorns Area Goals
• Protect and restore native habitat and manage for ecological resiliency of aquatic and
terrestrial habitat, wildlife connectivity, and other natural resources.
R-22-45 Page 6
• Open the Hawthorns Area to low-intensity public access, provide an internal trail system,
and provide multi-modal access to the property.
• Connect to adjacent public trails and explore opportunities for trail connections to
regional open space lands.
• Interpret the rich natural, cultural, and historic features and pursue partnerships to
manage the property’s natural and cultural history.
• Highlight scenic viewpoints and design recreational amenities while protecting scenic
viewsheds.
• Manage the property for safe public access in a fiscally sustainable manner that promotes
ongoing public support and appreciation with ongoing public engagement and consistent
with the District’s Good Neighbor Policy.
FISCAL IMPACT
Review and approval of the vision and goals has no direct, immediate fiscal impact.
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #6 Windy Hill: Trail Implementation,
Preservation and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership allocation, costs-to-date, projected future
Project expenditures and projected ending balance at the portfolio level.
MAA06 Windy Hill: Trail Implementation, Preservation and Hawthorns Area
Historic Partnership Portfolio Allocation:
Total Portfolio Allocation: $12,740,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 2/16/22): ($70,113)
Encumbrances: ($32,691)
Remaining FY22 Project Budgets: ($49,472)
Future MAA06 project costs (projected through FY25): ($95,796)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($248,072)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $12,491,928
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #06 Windy Hill: Trail Implementation,
Preservation and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership allocation, costs-to-date, projected life-to-
date project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining.
MAA06 Windy Hill: Trail Implementation, Preservation and Hawthorns Area
Historic Partnership Portfolio Allocation:
Total Portfolio Allocation: $12,740,000
Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):
06-002 Hawthorns Area Plan ($248,072)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($248,072)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $12,491,928
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
• May 18, 2021: PNR received an informational presentation on the proposed planning and
public engagement process for the Area Plan and provided input and guidance. (R-21-65,
meeting minutes)
R-22-45 Page 7
• August 24, 2021: PNR reviewed the proposed draft vision and goals and provided input and
guidance. (R-21-112, meeting minutes)
• November 16, 2021: PNR reviewed the revised vision and goals and draft public access
working group strategy and provided further refinements. PNR unanimously recommended
forwarding the refined vision and goal statements to the full Board for consideration. (R-21-
156, meeting minutes)
• March 1, 2022: PNR reviewed the proposed planning and public engagement process to
develop the Hawthorns Area Plan. (R-22-29, meeting minutes)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Developing the Hawthorns Area vision and goals is not a project subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. Environmental review would occur in a future fiscal year upon
Board approval of a draft Area Plan as the CEQA project description.
NEXT STEPS
The following table outlines the tentative project timeline for developing the Area Plan. Pending
Board approval of the Hawthorns Area vision and goals, staff will continue technical studies and
public engagement to develop existing conditions and inform opportunities and constraints.
Phase Calendar Year
Vision & Goals Spring 2022
Existing Conditions 2022
Programming / Conceptual Planning 2023
Area Plan / Environmental Review 2024
Implementation 2025+
ATTACHMENTS
1. Regional Map
2. Local Map
3. Aerial Map
4. Town of Portola Valley Public Trail Network
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, Planning Department
Prepared By:
Alex Casbara, Planner III, Planning Department
Arianna Nuri, Planner I, Planning Department
Contact Person:
Alex Casbara, Planner III, Planning Department
R-22-45 Page 8 Attachment 1
R-22-45 Page 9 Attachment 2
R-22-45 Page 10 Attachment 3
R-22-45 Page 11
Attachment 4
From:Jennifer Woodworth
Subject:Board Questions Re: 3/23/22 Agenda Items
Date:Wednesday, March 23, 2022 9:31:47 AM
Good morning all,
Below please find staff’s responses to Board questions submitted regarding tonight’s agenda items.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you.
Jen
Director Cyr
I have a question re: claim #12107 25K for S F Estuary Institute as a consultant for the Science
Advisory Panel. A brief explanation of what they provided would help.
During November and December 2021, SFEI was concluding their work on the final 2 topics for the
Science Advisory Panel; Benefits and Impacts of Recreation and E-bikes. Work included:
Completion of draft and revisions of the Recreation report
Preparation for and attendance at the December 9th Board meeting (including honoraria for
some of our Technical Advisory Committee members; others declined the honorarium)
Completion of E-bikes literature review
Draft and revisions of the E-bikes report
Preparation of a draft E-bikes presentation to the PNR Committee, which was later finalized
for the February 8th Board meeting.
Directors Riffle and Cyr
On page 6 in the last paragraph for item 8, I think "bull" should be "bill"
This has been corrected.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, CPMC
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
jwoodworth@openspace.org
650.691.1200
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
650.691.1200 (office)
openspace.org
From 50 to Forever: Caring for the land that cares for us – By creating Midpen
50 years ago, our community prioritized clean air and water, healthy habitats for
diverse native plants and animals, ecosystems that are resilient to the effects of our
changing climate, and places for people to connect with nature – that's what Midpen
provides in perpetuity. Celebrate with us all year long >